Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware that earlier this year I introduced a ten-minute Bill that called for a ban on the sale of sexually explicit material to children. Despite huge public support for that request, the response from WH Smith was to issue a notice that such material may still be displayed at1.2 m, which is the height of the average seven-year-old. Given that the industry appears incapable of regulating itself, will my hon. Friend consider meeting me and child-centred agencies to talk about what we can do to prohibit the sale of such material to children?

Shaun Woodward: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House? Both sides will agree that self-regulation is always preferable to Government regulation. We saw a good example of that with the video games industry two or three years ago. A problem was drawn to its attention and it responded by changing methodsof classification and dealing with retailers. My Department is consulting on the issue that my hon. Friend rightly raises, and I hope that she and other hon. Members who wish to lobby on the issue will provide more evidence. It is appropriate to encourage the industry to self-regulate. I have now seen some of the content in question and it is clearly preposterous to suggest that placing the material at a height of 1.2 m is an adequate safeguard.

Shaun Woodward: We have not had specific discussions with the  Daily Star—[Hon. Members: " Daily Sport".] Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has now given me a copy of the  Daily Sport and I understand that hon. Members are interested in looking at it.
	The material in some of the publications is the kind of stuff that one would expect to find, at best, on the top shelf and probably not in any newsagent. It is important that the House takes the matter seriously and that we consult on it. It is our ambition to achieve a resolution through self-regulation, but we would like the industry to take the issue as seriously as it merits.

Helen Goodman: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments and the slightly more open approach that he is now taking to the issue. In his consideration, will he take into account the fact that retailers and distributors of magazines have contractual arrangements under which they pay more to have magazines displayed at the most visible levels? It should therefore be straightforward to sort out which contracts are acceptable and which are not.

Tessa Jowell: Can I say, to reassure the hon. Gentleman, that we have one of the lowest rates of problem gambling in the world, and we intend to keep it that way? That is not in any way to diminish the suffering of those people and families for whom gambling becomes a problem. However, the list of measures includes, from September next year, the removal of 6,000 machines from unregulated premises such as minicab offices and fish-and-chip shops, to protect children from the risks of addiction to fruit machines. The Gambling Commission will have powers to oversee and to control the rate and frequency of play, stakes, and access to gaming machines which, as we know, can be a source of addiction. In particular,£3 million a year will be levied from the industry to support services for people who become addicted. Such work will be undertaken through the good offices of GamCare and the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). In addition, at the end of the month, we will host an international summit that will look at the exponential increase in online gambling. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will take comfort from the measures that the Government have put in place to protect people from gambling and the risks, particularly from new technologies.

Tessa Jowell: As I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), at the end of the month, we will host an international summit to address precisely that problem. As things stand, such offshore gambling is beyond the regulatory reach of the UK. The United States has recently introduced new legislation to enforce existing powers. We can certainly— [ Interruption. ]

Si�n Simon: The Gambling Commission is central to this, so I congratulate the Secretary of State on locating it in Birmingham over the summer. May I suggest that she take a similar approach to the regional casino and to what may technically be known as the London Olympics but which, in Birmingham, we hope will be known as the Birmingham and rest of Britain Olympics?

Roger Williams: The Brecon access group in my constituency, whose purpose is to promote access for disabled peopleto public buildings and private businesses, complains that when licensed premises undertake substantial refurbishment the opportunity is not often taken to make reasonable adjustment, as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to allow disabled people to use their facilities. Will the Minister see whether anything can be done through the advice notes to local authorities or by changing the legislation to make sure that licensed premises are available to disabled people and that they can enjoy them in the same way as more able people?

Jessica Morden: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Newport city centre, robbery, assault and violence are down this year by 40 per cent., which Gwent police attribute to the new licensing laws and the staggered opening times? Will he join me in congratulating the police, the council and the licence holders on their teamwork, which has cut city centre crime?

Richard Caborn: I advise local authorities not to go down that course. There are three stages.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) would listenand, indeed, read the Acthe would not make comments as stupid as those he made to the Conservative party conference, but that is an aside, Mr. Speaker. I see you have a smile on your face, so you obviously appreciated the joke.
	The Gambling Commission will find out whether those applying to run a casino in our country are fit and proper to do so. It is then up to local authorities to site casinos in their areaanybody would think that we are haranguing local authorities, but we are not. They will come forward on two matters: premises licenses and planning under planning regulation 106. It is up to them to get the best possible deal. I advise any local authority not to pre-commit themselves. They have a fantastic negotiating positionif they get an offer from Professor Crow's committee in respect of siting.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman's definition of success differs from mine, to be honest. If he thinks that the Conservative party conference was a success, he will have to go a long, long way before he occupies the seat occupied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If that conference was a success, he needs to keep on going. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government proposed eight regional casinos and the proposal was in wash-up before the last general election. The Conservatives decided to come back with the proposal of one regional casino, which we accepted because we wanted to get the Bill on to the statute book in order to protect the vulnerable in our society. That is where it now stopsat one regional casinounless the hon. Gentleman says to the Government that the Conservatives want to change the proposal. The proposal is very clear: one regional casino, and eight large and eight small. That is what we agreed before the election, and that is the basis on which the 2005 Act went through.  [Interruption.] Absolutely no: there will be one regional casino, and eight large and eight smallunless the Opposition propose an alternative that is acceptable to us, up to a figure of eight.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right, and we want to associate ourselves with, and to encourage, such informal sports. I congratulate Middlesbrough on having one of the best skateboarding facilities for young people in the region. That is precisely what we need to avoid antisocial behaviour in our communities and my hon. Friend and Middlesbrough council need to be congratulated in that regard.

Alistair Burt: May I publicly thank Mr. Ken Lynch of Sandy, who works tirelessly with youngsters in my constituency to identify and provide facilities such as skate parks for the many who wish to practise the sport responsibly? However, may I share his concern with the Minister that,when these facilities are planned, enough attention should be paid to securitylighting and closed circuit televisionin order to protect such youngsters, who are often bullied by others who want to disrupt them? I should be grateful if the Minister ensured that, when these facilities are planned, proper attention is paid to security to encourage youngsters, so that they are not driven away by those who are out to spoil their sport.

David Lammy: Yes; in a context in which Sport England has put more money into providingmore skateboard parks and we now have a play fund of 155 million for even more skateboard parks, I will be happy to discuss that with Sport England.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who often raises the matter in the House. He is right that the upkeep of our magnificent church buildings should be properly reflected in funding received from the state, and the Church Heritage Forum andthe Archbishops Council are constantly exploring possibilities with a number of Government contacts. The interest that this House takes in that Church-state relationship and getting more money into our churches is welcome.

Patrick Cormack: Is it not true that a tiny fraction of the money spent on that ridiculous dome, and an even tinier fraction of the money that will be spent on the Olympics, would ensure that all our cathedrals and churches are safe for a further 100 years?

Peter Viggers: Yes. Consideration is being givento the reappointment of a chairman and an announcement will be made in due course.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for, and would be happy to make, the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I could not make it better than he has done and I congratulate him on that. He is right that there is a huge problem with church funding, which is reflected in the questions that I am asked in the House, between what the state and what the Church can provide. We have seen many articles in the newspapers about cathedrals and churches that are in difficulty. The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is about that. We need to deal with the matter and, to do so, the state must take a much more proactive role.

Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that bishops should be appointed on their spiritual and administrative attributes and skills, not time served? If so, what is the Church doing to recognise such skills earlier in those clergymen who have not served 20 or30 years?  [Interruption.]

David Winnick: I do not wish to sound critical but are not the bishops a bit on the young side? Will bishops be protected by the new laws on age discrimination? Surely it is right and proper that they should also be covered.

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the children in care Green Paper, which I have published today. Copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library. At the heart of the Green Paper lies one simple presumption: that the aspirations of the state for children in care should match those that each parent has for their own children. Right hon. and hon. Members recognise that moral imperative, and I should like to pay tribute to the associate parliamentary group on children in and leaving care, and in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), for highlighting many of the issues that the Green Paper seeks to resolve. They have vociferously pointed out that this area has received too little attention for too long.
	We know the depressing statistics. Children in care are five times less likely to achieve five good GCSEs, and nine times more likely to be expelled from school. One quarter of people in prison today have spent some time in our care system. This Government have introduced a number of measures to try to address the complex problems of children in care. Since 1997, we have invested almost 1 billion in the quality protects initiative to improve outcomes for children in care. We have taken steps to encourage adoption instead of care, and we have placed a duty on local authorities to improve educational outcomes for this specific group of children. However, this has clearly not been enough.
	Today's Green Paper builds on those efforts and the implementation of Every Child Matters, which for the first time provides the infrastructure to deal with this issue in a co-ordinated way. The first priority must be to prevent children from slipping into care when there are family alternatives. We must take effective pre-emptive and preventive action, so that no child can be sucked into the system by default. If there is a chance that a child can be safely restored to a healing family environment, we must take it. We will trial a new kind of intensive family therapy to address parents' problems while ensuring that children are more than just helpless bystanders. We will seek to get to the heart of the domestic problems, tackling the most difficult situations of abuse, neglect or violence with a mix of conciliation and targeted care. To raise our knowledge of what works in this new area, we will create a national centre of excellence to share experience and knowledge.
	Secondly, the care system must act more likea traditional loving family, with all the extra responsibility that that implies. The fact that a child is in care does not mean that he or she should be deprived of the emotional support and development that most children, thankfully, can rely on. The state must ensure that children are always in the best hands, constantly supported by continuous guidance and motivation, investing in their futures and shaping their decisions.
	The care profession already comprises many dedicated, experienced professionals. However, we need to ensure that all carers reach the standard of the best. We will begin a round of specially tailored recruitment campaigns. We will also take steps to match foster carers with children more intelligently, fitting the complex needs of the child with the specialised skills of the carer. A new, tiered framework of qualifications, payments and standards will be used to steer these difficult decisions. By taking more trouble to get it right first time, we will avoid children being bounced from placement to placement, which is so damaging to them personally and disruptive to their studies.
	Thirdly, we must ensure that children in care receive an excellent education. Results have steadily improved for children in care, but still nine out of 10 do not achieve five good GCSEs. To ensure that they benefit from access to sport, music and drama, which instil cultural values and equip them with social capital, we will encourage local authorities to open their sports centres and leisure clubs to children in care free of charge.
	Social workers will receive budgets to spend on the personal needs of each child, allowing them the flexibility to find money quickly when a child needs extra support such as speech or language therapy.
	We will appoint a newa dreadful phrase, I know, Mr. Speakervirtual head teacher, who will, I reassure Members, be a real person, in every area, with overarching responsibility for driving up results among local children in care. We will guarantee catch-up lessons. With the passage of the Education and Inspections Bill, we will also require schools to take in children in care, even if the school is full, so children are elevated to the best schools rather than dumped in the worst.
	We will do more to prevent children in care from being excluded. Nothing is more damaging to a child's chances of success than moving school after theyhave made their GCSE choices. Children who change school after year 10 drop around one and a half grades per subject, so eight C grades become four D and four E grades. We will therefore create a presumption that children in care will not move schools in years 10and 11.
	When children have to move home, we will do all that we can to avoid them moving school as well. We have proposed that, in such circumstances, and where practicable, children in care will get free transport to their existing school rather than move to a new one.
	Fourthly, we need to ensure that children leave care in a measured way. Too often, children in care feel that the system spits them out on their 16th birthday. Only6 per cent. make it to university, compared with 38 per cent. of their peer group. We must ensure that children get a soft landing when they leave the system, particularly during those crucial years when decisions are made about their future.
	We will give every child in care a right to decide when they leave the system and the chance to stay with their foster families up to the age of 21, or longer if they are continuing in education. We will establish a new 2,000 bursary to encourage them to attend university, and we will also put an extra 100 into their child trust fund for every year they spend in care.
	Parenting is a weighty responsibility and institutions need to be held accountable, just as individuals would be. Every local authority will be subject to regular children in care inspections by Ofsted. My Department will make it a specific priority to improve the academic performance of children in care, and Ministers will hold an annual stock-take to review progress.
	Too often, decisions about children in care are taken without listening to those with most at stakethe children themselves. Local authorities will be encouraged to set up children in care councils so that the voices of children in care are properly heard. For this Green Paper, we will ensure that our consultation stretches right into children's homes to connect with people who have been through the system.
	This is a Green Paper with as many ideas as prescriptions. We recognise that during open consultation many further ideas will emergeindeed, from Members on both sides of the House, but particularly from those who have been in care and the dedicated professionals who work in this area, day in and day out. They are not to blame for the collective failure that this report highlights: we are.
	We need to provide a more co-ordinated approach to these entrenched issues, ensuring that our care system is focused less on systems and more on care. These children are our responsibility. We cannot continue to fail them.

David Willetts: We welcome the statement, as the evidence on the plight of our cared-for children is deeply shocking. Fifty-four per cent. of them fail to get a single qualification from school. Twenty-five per cent. of people in prison were children in care. The system is letting down the nation's children in the greatest need.
	The Secretary of State paid tribute to the all-party group. We should also pay tribute to the work of organisations such as Barnardo's, the NCH and  The Times Educational Supplement in helping to keep up the pressure to tackle this problem. Over the past 10 years, various attempts have been made to tackle it: initiatives such as quality protects, public spending up to1.9 billion, and targets. I remind the Secretary of State of the target set in 2002:
	to substantially narrow the gap between the educational attainment and participation of children in care and that of their peers by 2006.
	That was supposed to mean that no more than 10 per cent. should reach school-leaving age without having sat a GCSE. In 2005, however, 36 per cent. of children in care left school without having sat a single GCSE. Sadly, the Government's targets have not been met, and, despite the increases in public expenditure, the problem persists, as the Secretary of State openly acknowledged.
	We therefore welcome many of the Secretary of State's further proposals today. Is he confident, however, that there is the capacity to deliver the initiatives? Initiatives are endlessly brought to the House, but all too often there is not the organisation and resource to make them happen. Is he confident that local authorities, which, in reality, will bear the brunt of many of his proposed initiatives, have the capacity to deliver them? Is he aware of what is nothing less than a crisis in the recruitment of social workers, with a 10 per cent. shortage in London and the south-east? It is all too easy to kick social workers, and blame them, but the initiatives he describes will work only if we have more social workers. We should not be kicking and blaming social workers; we need to recruit more. We also have a shortage of 10,000 foster carers. With such a shortage, how can we deliver his initiatives? We need that capacity, and we heard nothing from him today about how that will be achieved.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State is right about the need to enable children to stay on longer in care if possible. Will he admit that another example of well-intentioned initiatives going wrong is the Government's Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000? It has become part of the problem, creating a perverse incentive for local authorities to get children out of care early, so that they do not have to write cumbersome pathway plans. That is the regrettable and unpredicted effect of his legislation.
	I must admit to the Secretary of State that I am not quite sureand I do not know if he knowswhat a virtual head teacher is. I very much look forward to him telling us. I think of it in a simple and practical way. Who will take responsibility for turning up at parents' evening to ask how a child in care is doing? Will it be the social worker or the new virtual head teacher? If, as a result of his proposals, there is even more confusion about that, we will have gone backwards rather than forwards.
	There are also some wider issues. Many children in care have troubled and chaotic lives, and many of them have come from families with troubled and chaotic lives. All too often, Government schemes, instead of providing some stability and security, have mirrored the chaos and confusion from which many of those children have suffered. It is so important that they have more stability.
	If the Secretary of State's proposals do indeed mean fewer school moves and fewer different placements for a child in care, we will certainly support them. However, I should be grateful if he explained how he will ensure greater continuity of education when we know that the average move to a new placement involves a journey of 20 miles. If he is to provide more specialist placements, how can he be confident that they will be nearby, and how can we be confident that a child will retain contacts with neighbourhood and family?
	The Secretary of State will of course recognise that even when a child is moved out of its immediate family, there might be members of the extended family who can take some responsibility for it. As we know from his extraordinary personal experience, the Secretary of State was not in care because members of his family were willing to help him. Is he aware that extended family members sometimes feel that social workers are excluding them from decisions about the child's future? I have heard from grandparents, for example, who wished to be involved in fostering or even adopting a child, and who feel that social workers have ignored the opportunity that they could have provided. Will more be done in that regard?
	The statement is welcome. If the state is to take on the enormous responsibility of caring for children, it must try its best to match the commitment, stability and emotional support that a family can provide. If the proposals that the Secretary of State has announced will achieve those objectives, we will support them.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the evidence is shocking, and absolutely right to say that the problem persists. I have not tried to make political points at the Dispatch Box. I have said that this is our responsibility, we are in government, I am the Secretary of State, and the buck stops here.
	We must measure what is happening to children in care, and until the late 1990s there was very little such measurement. The quality protects initiative, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, invested some 1 billion in additional funds, and some of the statistics have improved; but an increase from 7 per cent. to 11 per cent. in the number of children gaining five GCSEs is not good enough. There is no need for any party-political points to be made. I should like to think that Members in all parts of the House, and certainly the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), are determined to tackle the problem.
	That brings me to the issue of capacity. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned social workers. We are already involved in a project called options for excellence, which aims to give social workers the right professional status, reduce wastage rates and ensure that social workers continue to work with children. It is rather like some of what we tried to do for teachers in the 1990s. An interim report has already been published, and the final report should be published shortly. We certainly do not want to stigmatise social workers, which is why I have gone out of my way to say that the problems we face in relation to children in care are not the fault of the dedicated professionals who work with them day in, day out.
	We need to consider whether we should give foster carers a salary. That is a specific proposal in the Green Paper. Another is the proposal for three tiers of social workers: one to deal with the least difficult cases, then another, and a top tier dealing with the most difficult problems and receiving the support, training and salary that will enable them to do that.
	I do not agree that the Children (Leaving Care)Act 2000 has made no difference. The statistics show that there are still too many children in care who are not in employment, education or training, but the figure of 46 per cent. before the Act was introduced now stands at 59 per cent., so there has been an improvement of 13 percentage points.
	The hon. Gentleman challenged me to define a virtual head teacher. I will have a go. The idea is for a local education authority to employ someonemost likely a retired head teacher or a head teacher who has moved on to other employmentwho will do the job for the whole authority. That person will cross school boundaries to ensure that children in care are being properly looked after and dealt with in the school system.
	The point about parents' eveningsa poignant point that I believe features in the Green Paperwas made by a child in care, who said, Nobody turns up on my parents' evening; there is nobody there. We want to ensure that someone is there. If the child in care has a foster carer, the foster parent should be thereand most foster parents would agree that that is part of being a foster parent. If the child is based in an institution, his or her social worker should be present. That is all very much part of the plans that we have set out.
	The dedicated teacher ideaI believe that it emerged some years ago under the previous Governmentcan be made to work more effectively and it also connects with our ideas about advocacy. The problem with children in care not having a lead professional to look after them can be tackled in a number of ways.
	The penultimate point is about stability, and I agree with the hon. Member for Havant that it is the key word. If there is a mantra that runs through it all, it is stability. We have to get the placements right in the first place, which is part of the tiered approach. Part of the reason why children move around so much is the fact that the original placement could have been handled better and dealt with more intelligently.
	The hon. Gentleman's final point was about members of the family and social workers. It is right to look carefully into that. Social workers should not be in a position whereby the extended family cannot convince them about the care that they could provide. Children themselves are sometimes old enough and able to articulate their views and legislation already contains the presumption that the child's views should not only be heard, but taken into account, yet that does not seem to be happening. All those points need to be addressed. I accept that, as with other Green Papers, many other ideas will emerge as the consultation proceeds.

Ann Coffey: As my right hon. Friend says, early intervention in children's lives is crucial to prevent them from coming into care in the first place. What can make a difference is good quality child care from birth, which some parents cannot provide on their own. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in implementing the Childcare Act 2006, it is important for families where children are at risk that free and good-quality child care is available in children's centres to support non-working parents and to improve children's early-life care?

David Kidney: The care leavers whom I met last week were clear that they want to see more help for families, more foster carersso that they have a better choice and can stay in a stable home with the foster carer of their choicemore contact with social workers and more account taken of their views. The personal commitment of my right hon. Friend is beyond question, as is that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families, but will he ensure that alongside the theme of stability that runs through the Green Paper he will add the themes of consistency of approach, by everybody who deals with the children and young people in that vulnerable group, and of listening to them? In the associate parliamentary group for looked after children and care leavers that I chair, there are many youngsters who are bright, thoughtful and full of ideas to whom we should listen. They can certainly make a contribution to decisions on how they are looked after.

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The idea is that third tier foster carers will be trained, supported and given help, including with changes to the house, to enable them to deal with the most difficult cases, particularly of disabled children. My hon. Friend makesand has made over several yearsall those points. When she finds the time to look at the proposals, she will see that that is exactly what we are seeking to do.

Alan Johnson: First, of course, there is the 14 to 19 agenda, which seeks to address that issue for all children. Children in care would be a particular part of that. There is the entitlement to a level 3 qualification for all 19 to 25-year-oldsI am talking about general issues now, but I shall come on to the specific point about children in careand the initiatives around Train to Gain. In addition, we all await the Leach report. Specifically for children in care, we found once again in Lewisham, but it is also happening in Barnet and other local authoritiesthat there are initiatives through which children in care are offered help during that crucial period into work. They are offered training, andin Lewishama certain number of jobs. The effect is that Lewisham now has a lead officer who was herself in care for 14 years but came through that process, and now does a very good, worthwhile, professional job. There are all kinds of ideas out there to reduce the number of children in care who are not in employment, education or training, which must be an absolute priority of the Green Paper.

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement updating the House on developments in the prison population over the summer recess, and setting out the steps that I am taking to ensure the necessary prison capacity now and in the future.
	The Government have kept and will continue tokeep our commitment to tackling crimereducing it by 35 per cent. in nine yearsand tackling the causes of crime. We have 2.5 million more jobs, the lowest level of unemployment for decades, 1,000 Sure Start centres and a significant reduction in social deprivationattention to the early years of life, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has just outlined. We shall continue that commitment to tackling both crime and the causes of crime.
	Public protection has always been our first priority. We have consistently supported tougher sentences in the course of protecting the public. Even today, in another place, we are tabling an amendment to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill to increase sentencesfor those caught in possession of blades or sharp instruments. That has been a constant message over the past decade and has been reflected in the growth in the proportion of people sent to prison and in the increase in the length of time for which they have been imprisonedin short, making the sentence and the punishment fit the crime more appropriately.
	To match that growth we have already built more than 16,000 prison places in nine yearsapproximately the same amount as the previous Conservative Government built in 18 years. Labour has built at twice the rate of the Conservatives. However, I have never hidden from the House our continuing need for more prison places to keep pace with the requirement.
	In July, I published the document Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of the law-abiding majority, in which I said that
	we will now build an additional 8,000 places and will keep under close review whether more are needed.
	That was set out in terms in the document. I said, too:
	We already have an additional 900 places under construction which are due to come onstream in Autumn 2007.
	I also said:
	We continue to imprison too many non-dangerous people with mental health problems who should be more effectively diverted into appropriate treatments at an early stage.
	I said:
	We will focus prison places for remand prisoners on those with the highest risk of re-offending. And we will work with the Lord Chief Justice and sentencers to ensure probation resources are targeted on those who most need them.
	Of course, hon. Members will have studied carefully and remembered those words. I remind the House of them in view of the Lord Chief Justice's remarks at the weekend. That remains my framework for addressing these issues in the medium term. However, it is the case that in the short term the prison population has risen sharply over the summer period and today stands at 79,819. I want to highlight two factors among others that specifically contributed to that increase over the summer and during the year.
	First, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is beginning to have a real effect. The House will know that the Act introduced tough new sentencesindeterminate sentencesto answer the public demand that life, where appropriate, should truly mean life for those judged to be a danger to the public. It also introduced more flexible community orders which would be a more effective alternative to prison for lower level offenders. The evidence so far is that our courts are making good use of indeterminate sentences so that dangerous people are staying in prison for longer, but they are not yet using community orders as fully as they might. That was the point emphasised this weekend by the Lord Chief Justice. That leads to increased pressure on prison places above that anticipated in the short term.
	Secondly, I made a commitment to the House to consider, find and detain as many of the previously unconsidered 1,013 foreign national prisoners as we could. In addition, I made a further commitment: I said that we would not release those foreign national prisoners who ought to be considered for deportation before such consideration had been completed andwe would continue to detain them until that wasdone. Working through that process of dealing withthe backlog while maintaining the deportation consideration for everyone who is released from prison will obviously contribute towards a higher prison population until the position is fully resolved. I shall return to details of that later in my statement.
	I want now to set out some of the actions that have been recommended to me since July to alleviate the pressure and my response. It has been proposed to me that I should agree to the early release of prisoners into the community. I have considered that carefully, but I do not believe that it is appropriate at this time and I have rejected it. My view is that it should be used only in the last resort. I have, however, accepted the recommendations of the prison authorities in a number of other ways: first, in the re-roling of two women's prisons to take male prisoners, which is a sensibleuse of resources; secondly, in providing maximum flexibility within the prison estate to allow transfers to the open estate under severe restrictions in addition to those transferred as a matter of course. That measure was focused on lower risk offenders serving short sentences for non-sexual or non-violent offences. Prisoners have been transferred only after careful risk assessment.
	Thirdly, we will improve processes for dealing with foreign national prisoners. I hope that by the spring of 2007 we will reach the position where the consideration of deportation for all foreign nationals will begin six months before the end of their sentences. We are making steady progress towards that as we deal with the backlog. That would ensure a reduced requirement for detention after the normal release date and therefore a reduced pressure on the prison population.
	Fourthly, I have today accepted the recommendation to implement the formal use of police cells, known as Operation Safeguard. Implementation will be on Thursday 12 October. The use of Safeguard is not ideal, but it is tried and it is tested. I am extremely grateful for the support that we have received from the Association of Chief Police Officers and from individual chief constables, as well from the Metropolitan police. Those measures should help to alleviate the position in the short term.
	In addition to that, I can today tell the House that on top of the medium and long-term proposals that I set out in our July plans and to which I referred earlier, I am also developing further measures. Specifically, we are in negotiations and consultation to convert a former Army barracks into prisoner accommodation. Similarly, we are in negotiations to utilise a former secure hospital in Ashworth East near Liverpool. We are expanding our immigration estate by 300 places by March 2007 and by a further 400 places by 2008, and we are exploring further innovative ways of extending immigration detention capacity for those who are detained as a result of immigration considerations, thus releasing pressure on the prison estate. We will, of course, continue to work closely with the private sector to get the best of what it can offer us, and we are continuing to encourage the courts to make effective use of bail, taking advantage of electronic tagging and alternative accommodation.
	I have also agreed an additional package of measures to improve the processing of foreign national prisoners. The immigration and nationality directorate has been taking a
	robust approach to the deportation of European economic area nationals, which has been defeated consistently in the courts. We will be changing the law to strengthen the link between criminality and deportation, but in the meantime we are no longer taking unproductive cases to the courts at the taxpayers' expense, with negative results. We are introducing an incentive scheme to persuade prisoners to return voluntarily to their own country. As we have always treated Irish citizens in a way which reflected the close historical, community and political ties between the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the existence of the common travel area, we are considering treating those citizens as a special case. In addition, the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate, Lin Homer, is writing to the Home Affairs Committee today to provide a further breakdown of the progress made on the 1,013 prisoners released without consideration of deportation, and I will arrange for a copy of that to go into the Library of the House.
	Finally, in the longer term, we have already outlined plans for a prisons building programme for 8,000 places by 2012, and what is required beyond that will be given further consideration. We have also outlined plans for the greater use of community sentences, a scheme for payback to the community, and the rehabilitation of prisoners. I hope the measures that I have taken will alleviate the pressure in the short term and will complement the measures that I outlined to the House in my statement in July. I commend the measures to the House.

David Davis: May I start by thanking the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement. May I also take this chancemy first opportunityto congratulate him on his management of the alleged terrorist plot in August, which, if I may say so, I think he handled rather well. I am breathless in my admiration for the brazen way in which he claimed credit in his statement for the Tory initiative on increased penalties for knife crime, but of that more later.

David Davis: As my hon. Friend says, it is called chutzpah.
	Regrettably, I cannot say the same of the Government's sorry handling of the crisis in our prison system. There is no excuse for the catastrophe facing the country.
	In the past five years, the Government have received warning after warning that they were going to run out of cellswarnings from the Opposition, from the Prison Reform Trust, from their own advisers, and even from the chief inspector of prisons. In 2002, the lowest Home Office projection for the prison population by this year was 87,000, which is significantly higher than the capacity that it now has. When the Home Office could have acted to provide the necessary extra prison places, it failed to do so. Last year, long after it knew that it had a looming crisis, it even sold off a prison ship, cutting prison places by another 400.
	Even on the current Home Secretary's watch, the Department has been lackadaisical and slow to act. On 24 May this year, he was quoted in the press as saying:
	Protecting the public is my absolute priority.
	That is quite proper for a Home Secretary, yet I have a memorandum written by his private secretary only the day after, detailing a discussion of this crisis and considering the option of administrative releasethe early release of prisoners to free cells. We know that that proposal was quashed by No. 10, but why were not all the proposals that the Home Secretary has put before us today initiated then, in May, before we had a crisis? Why do we have to have a crisis to get action out of this Government?
	The Home Secretary's predecessors attempted to head off this problem by way of a combination of early release and community sentencing. To justify that, they pretended that community sentences were equally as tough as punishments, deterrents and methods of rehabilitation. None of that is true. Nine out of 10 of those who go through Labour's flagship programmethe intensive supervision and surveillance programme or ISSPreoffend within two years. The Home Secretary talked about more tagging: 75 per cent. of young criminals on tags reoffend within one year.
	The Government's strategy for rehabilitation is not only failing outside prison; it is also being destroyed inside prison. Owing to prison overcrowding, in order to create places in individual prisons, vast numbers of transfers occur. Last year, there were 98,000 transfers between prisons among a population of 80,000. That means that prisoners are frequently uprooted before they complete courses designed to rehabilitate them and to equip them for an honest life in the outside world. As a result, under this Government reoffending rates for prison have gone up from 56 to 67 per cent. Does the Home Secretary accept that that increase in reoffending ratesthe greatest in the history of our prison systemis a direct result of the Government's neglect of this area?
	The various proposals that the Home Secretary has detailed might now be unavoidable, but only twothe action to remove or swap out foreign prisoners, and the re-roling of women's prisonsare relatively low risk and low cost. Both of them should have been done months or even years ago.
	Using police cells will be costly and will probably also be counter-productive. The last time this Government implemented Operation Safeguard, it cost more than 10 million, tied down policemen who should have been catching criminals rather than acting as part-time prison warders, and clogged up the police cells so that there was nowhere to put criminals who were caught. Does the Home Secretary accept that that will happen again this time, and if not why not?
	Does the Home Secretary recognise that by accepting the transfer of category C prisoners to open prisons he is sanctioning an increase in risk to public safety? He might talk about risk assessment, but he must know, even now, that this is a very imprecise technique. Otherwise, how does he explain the rash of murders committed by prisoners on probation and parole? Does he recognise that each of his proposals will buy him only a matter of weeks or perhaps months? Even his conversion of an Army barracks will buy him only just over one more month.
	The programme that the Home Secretary has laid before us today might get him to just past Christmas, but what will happen then? Will there be even more inappropriately given, non-custodial sentences or even earlier releases? Does he accept that the prison capacity failure has harmed every stage of the criminal justice system? It will handicap policemen from catching criminals. It has meant that criminals who should be in prison are either not sent to prison or released too early, and even when some criminals go to prison, the process has been rendered so chaotic that reoffending rates are climbing to record levels.
	The Home Secretary must recognise that he cannot blame this on the civil servants, prison officers or judges. This crisisthis catastrophehas arisen because this Government, by the policy that they have chosen to follow, have been derelict in their duty to protect the public.

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the events of August and the counter-terrorist measures that were taken. Far from in any way attempting to lay blame today with any officials or with anyone outside those who are responsiblei.e., meI would much prefer to join him in laying some plaudits at the door of those who worked on that counter-terrorist operation. As I said, that is not a reason for complacency, but all of us should take all opportunities to put on the record our thanks for the dedication of those people who work night and day to protect this country from terrorism, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman allowed me the opportunity to do that.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned statistics and inadvertently illustrated just how difficult it can be to judge the trend. He said that the lowest estimate for this year was that 87,000 prison places were needed, but in fact, that is some 7,000 places above the capacity and the requirement at which we are operating. So it is not an exact science, but I have, I think, been quite straight with the House in three areas. First, I accept responsibility, because I am the Secretary of State for home affairs. Secondly, I have not hidden from the House that there is pressure on prison places, which is why I have not only discussed this issue in detail here, but within six weeks of coming in, discussed it with our colleagues at the Treasury and got agreement for another 8,000 prison places. Thirdly, and as I have said today, I have been considering further measures to deal with this issue. It is not true to paint this as a crisis; we did not discover it over the weekend. I have known since we went in about the pressure on places, and I have tried to manage the short, medium and longer term, and to outline these issues before the House with as much honesty as I can.
	Let me then ask for a little honesty on a couple of subjects that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He was very selective in his discussion of reoffending rates. He chose to discuss the intensive supervision and surveillance programme because he knows that the hardest category of people to prevent from reoffending is young people, and that the hardest category among young people to prevent from reoffending is the worst offenders among young people. That is precisely why he chose to discuss that category.
	Let us deal with some other reoffending categories, such as home detention curfew. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared continually to run down anything that happens outside custodial sentences, but the reoffending rate for home detention curfew, while tagged, since it began in January 1999, is only 4 per cent., which is an unparalleled low level of reoffending. More than 130,000 people have been released on home detention curfew, and given the low reoffending rate of 5 per cent., I should have expected that extraordinary statistic to fall from the right hon. Gentleman's lips while he was at the Dispatch Box.
	The House will also be interested to know that for adultsnot youngstersthe overall community sentence reoffending rate is too high, at 53 per cent. over two years, but that is 14 per cent. lower than the figure for those who serve prison custodial sentences. So probation is not obviously and self-apparently worse in all circumstances, and the right hon. Gentleman would do better to give a balanced view. Moreover, the overall reoffending rate is not 90-odd per cent. for juveniles; it is some 41 per cent. over one year. So it is wrong to take one specific area and to suggest that everything is the same.
	Let me deal finally with prison building. It is absolutely true that we are under pressure, which is the reason why I am bringing in these measures. I hope that the situation has been managed over the past five or six months in a way that copes with the present pressures on prisons, as well as with the foreign national prisoner crisis. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benchesand they are all gentlemen [Hon. Members: No!] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is very obviously a lady, was hidden by the desk; I must have it moved. My profuse apologies, Mr. Speaker. Re-roleing prisons is one thing; re-roleing ladies on the Front Bench is quite another, more offensive, thing.
	I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will support me in my attempt to ensure that no foreign national prisoners are released from prison before they have been considered for deportation. If that is the case, while we work to the early lead time that is necessary in order to ensure that we can give six months' notice so that people will be considered before release, there will be pressure on prison places. I would have hoped that the Opposition would accept that. But the truth of the matter is that while the right hon. Gentleman has been making a dreadful, dreadful fuss because we are a couple of hundred short of maximum capacity [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) shouts, A crisis. Let me give the figures for April 1997, which we inherited. In April 1997, after 18 years of Conservative Government, the total capacity of our prison system was 60,353. The actual prison population was 60,131. They were 223 short of absolute total capacity after18 years. We will not take lectures from them on this.

John Reid: I will say it again: the reoffending rate for home detention curfew is 4 per cent.; the overall reoffending rate for adult community sentences is53 per cent., compared with 67 per cent. for prison; and the overall reoffending rate for juvenile community sentences is 41 per cent. As requested, I have said it againI do not know why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) thinks that he has made a case whereas I have merely mentioned something. I have made those remarks as part of what I hope is a balanced contribution.
	Those who should stay in prison longer for the protection of the public ought to be retained in sufficient prison places, while others ought not to be in prison. The Liberals constantly demand more prison places and fewer people to fill them. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not make a commitment on how many extra prison places the Liberals would build. I have already said 8,000 extra prison places, and I will continue to review the matter, but does he have a figure in mind? He would provide an unspecified number of extra prison places for fewer prisoners, although that is unspecified, too. That is a typical concoction from the Liberals, and vacuous is too substantial a word to describe it.  [ Interruption. ] Conservative Members should not laugh, because they have not told us how many prison places they would provide.
	In the summer, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that the Conservative party would build more prison places, but he was immediately put back in his box by the shadow Chancellor, who told him that there would be no commitment.  [ Interruption. ] If there is a specific number, I am waiting to hear it.
	I have tried to be honest with the House in saying that there is pressure on prison places and explaining how we are going to manage that in the short term and the longer term. This is not a case of being caught on the hop by an unexpected event. The only unexpected event that caught me on the hop was being appointed to the Home Office, and I have already accepted that. Since I have been there, I have tried to ensure that we have a planned, progressive attempt to make sure that the sentence fits the crime and that the prison places available fit sentence lengths and numbers. That is what we will continue to do.
	On foreign national prisoners, we are doing a considerable amount. Five hundred people are allocated to this to try not only to reduce the backlog but to deal with the cases that are coming up. Since we had our first discussion in this House, about 3,800 cases have been dealt with and 1,000 of those people have already been deported. Events continue to take place as we deal with the problems that arose in May or June of last year. I thank my officials for dealing with both those areas with dedication and commitment.

John Battle: My right hon. Friend will know that Armley prison in my constituency has struggled to cope with overcrowding for more than two decades, with more than 1,000 people locked up every night, 50 going in and 50 released. Even in those circumstances, the governor and staff have done a remarkable job in providing education and training and tackling drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now well established research saying that if a prisoner who has a familythat applies to 50 per cent.gets more than six visits from his young children he is very unlikely to reoffend? When we tackle reoffending, will my right hon. Friend join together the programmes for adult literacy

Andrew MacKay: When the Home Secretary described the Department as not fit for purpose, I presume that he was referring to his predecessors' failure in nine years to create a proper prison building programme. Does he know that he will be judged on how many genuine extra prison places he creates in the next few months?

Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to meet me and Dover district council to discuss his proposals to use Connaught barracks in Dover as a prison site. He knows that people in Dover are outraged and angry about the proposals, not only because of the site's proximity to local schools and a local housing estate but because it is special and key to strategic redevelopment. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when we meet, we have the opportunity to put those powerful arguments to him as we did to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), and that he will take those points into consideration before making a final decision?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government newclause 7 Abolition of contract exemption.
	Government motion that clause 53 be transferred to the end of line 23 on page 56. Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.

Stephen Ladyman: I hope that it is not impertinent of me to say thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the ruling that you have just given.
	New clauses 6 and 7 deal with taxis and private hire vehicles, sometimes known as minicabs. Both clauses have the same objective: to make travel safer for people who use those modes of transport. Against the background of the Bichard report and the legislation that we have brought forward in that regard, we have considered carefully whether we should use the opportunity presented by the Road Safety Bill to deal with any urgent safety concerns relating to taxi and PHV legislation. The result is these new clauses to deal with two worrying aspects of the legislation that we identified.
	New clause 6 addresses our concern about a taxi or PHV driver's right to continue working while appealing against a decision to suspend or revoke his licence, even if he is considered to represent an immediate threat to public safety. The new clause gives local licensing authorities in England and Wales, outside London, a new power which will enable them to suspend or revoke a taxi or PHV driver's licence with immediate effect on safety grounds. That power has been available tothe licensing authority in LondonTransport for Londonfor a number of years.
	Drivers' automatic right to continue working pending appeal has been a source of justified concern to many taxi and PHV licensing authorities. They want to use their licensing powers to ensure that passengers are safe using local taxi and PHV services. They play a tremendously important role in protecting residents and visitors who use taxis and PHVs in their areas. The new clause will enable them to do so even more thoroughly in some circumstancesfor example, when a driver has committed a serious offence or is suffering from a medical condition that makes it unsafe for him to continue working.

Stephen Ladyman: I understand their concern. If the new clause is accepted today, there will be a consultation with all stakeholders following Royal Assent. One of the issues that we will consider during the consultation is the time at which the changes will come into force. However, I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that a key principle on which we shall have to decide when making a decision is the safety of the public. I am sure that he and his constituents would agree with that. There may therefore be a conflict between the interest of protecting the public and the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who have existing contracts. I hope that we shall find a way of resolving that conflict, but if there is no way of doing so, we shall have to come down on the side of public safety. I hope that despite that caveat, and given the promise of a thorough consultation involving all stakeholders, the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that we will listen to his constituents' concerns.
	New clause 7 deals with our concern about what is commonly known as the contract exemption: the provision that exempts drivers, vehicles and operators outside London from licensing if the vehicles are hired only under contracts lasting seven days or more. On Second Reading and on other occasions, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) expressed concern about what will now be clause 53, which tightens the definition of a private hire vehicle in London and will bring vehicles dedicated to contract work within the London PHV licensing regime.
	One of the hon. Gentleman's points was the clause would be inconsistent with retention of the contract exemption outside London. In Committee I promised to consider the matter, while warning the hon. Gentleman that those who open a can of worms must expect what they are likely to find in it. Having considered, I reached a conclusionalso reached by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron)that was not the one for which the hon. Gentleman had hoped. Our conclusion was that public safety, and indeed consistency, required not that we did not make the provision in London, but that we extended it to the rest of the country and ensured that contract private hire work was licensed both in London and elsewhere. That is why we tabled the new clause.

Stephen Ladyman: I will take up those issues as we discuss the various amendments before us. There is a difference between causing death and causing serious injury and I believe that the provisions dealing with them should be different. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, which she has put to me before and, if she will accept it, I will deal with them in greater detail at a more appropriate place in our debate.
	To continue my discussion of new clause 7, there are no compelling reasons why private hire services provided under long-term contracts should be outside the arrangements for ensuring public safety, which are considered to be essential for other private hire work. The need to ensure public safety remains the same, regardless of whether the hiring is a one-off or part of a long-term contract. For a passenger possibly at risk, the method of hiring is not relevant; what is important is that there is no doubt that all the necessary checks and procedures have been comprehensively and effectively carried out. There are good grounds for removing the contract exemption in terms of ensuring a level playing field in the industry. Unlicensed contractors have a commercial advantage over their licensed counterparts, which cannot be justified.
	I believe that both new clauses are strongly supported by those who have responsibility for taxi and PHV licensing.

Stephen Hammond: We agree with the Government on one of the new clauses, but probably not on the other. New clause 6 introduces new provisions into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That Act currently allows a local authority or other licensing power or body to exercise the power to revoke, suspend or refuse a licence where the subject is convicted of specific offences or for any other reasonable cause that the authority has grounds for believing. If I understand the intention behind the new clause, it will allow a local authority or licensing body to revoke or suspend the licence of taxi driver or minicab with immediate effect where it is a matter of public safety, or on other grounds after21 days where notice has been served on the driver.
	Our question, on which I seek clarification, is this; the Government currently have powers under the 1976 Act to revoke a licence for any other reasonable cause and for a specific conviction. The proposed public safety grounds represent a power that is additional to the Act and it is unclear how this will work in practice.
	I assume that a conviction for a serious driving offence would be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that a conviction for an assault such as actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm against another road user, a pedestrian or a passenger would again be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that driving a vehicle without a valid MOT or in an unroadworthy condition as designated by the police or by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency would be covered under the reasonable cause provision. I assume that a deterioration in a given medical condition would be covered by that provision as well.
	If the Minister is willing to tell me that my assumptions are incorrect, I will see the need for the new clause. If so, perhaps he will give me three specific examples where public safety needs arise beyond those already dealt with by the 1976 Act. The Minister made much in Committee about powers that were not being enforced at present and that we should not introduce more new powers that were unlikely to be enforced. We need clarity from the Government as to exactly how the new clause will work.
	There was substantial discussion in Committee of new clause 7 and the Minister has done what he warned us he would do; he has closed what he described as the can of worms. However, as new clause 7 puts into effect for the rest of the country what clause 53 does for London, is it necessary? The 1988 Act is working perfectly well within London. There are vast numbers of contractors supplying private hire services to councils on a contract basis. They are Criminal Records Bureau-checked and their vehicles are checked and comply with safety provisions but they are not available to the public. There seems to be no reason for the Government to intervene in an Act that is working well. This seems to be another piece of unnecessary legislation.

Stephen Ladyman: Clearly there are opportunities within the process that someone must go through to have the right to drive a vehicle under the contract exemption that might allow someone who had not been appropriately checked to drive. We had this debate at Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Orpington said that the need for checks would put his constituent, who had a PHV company that was taking advantage of the contract exemption, at a competitive disadvantage, because he would now have to pay for his drivers to be checked. Clearly there is a loophole. I agreed in Committee to look at the matter and to decide whether, in the interests of consistency, we should close the loophole not only in London, as Transport for London had requested, but in the rest of the country. We took the view that we should close it in the rest of the country.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to cite three examples, but I cannot do so. I hope that nobody will ever be in a position to do so, because we have closed the loophole. Serious questions would certainly be asked if we did not do so. Will the change be a major regulatory burden on the industry? No, it will not. I hope that anybody who has used the contract exemption in the past has checked their drivers and gone through the whole process. The fact that they will now have to do so by law is neither here nor there. It should be no additional burden if they have followed best practice in the past. If they have not been doing so, there will be an additional burden, but I argue that it is an appropriate burden for them to carry.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister is carefullybut not helpfullyintertwining the two clauses. Underthe Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)Act 1976 a taxi or minicab driver can be suspended for being convicted of a specific offence or for any other reasonable cause decided by the licensing authority. I would like the Minister to tell us what public safety requires beyond any other reasonable cause. As yet, he has not told us.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of the new clause and I accept full responsibility for not having explained it. There will be no new powers to suspend or revoke a licence. One would still have to satisfy the grounds for a suspension or revocation of a driver's licence as under the present legislation. The difference is that at the moment if the individual whose licence is suspended appeals against that suspension, they can continue to drive people around while they await the hearing of the appeal. If someone is accused of a serious offenceas serious as rape or some other sexual offenceit would be horrendous if they were allowed to continue to drive a private hire vehicle while waiting for the appeal against suspension to be heard. Under the new clause, when the licensing authority takes the view that the offence is serious, it will be able to suspend the licence.
	The argument that was put to us by some taxi drivers was that it might leave them open to false allegations and they might lose their livelihood over a trivial allegation while awaiting the hearing of appeal against suspension. However, in the experience of the use of the power in London, where it has been in place for some time, it has not been abused. Drivers have had their licences suspended pending appeal only in cases in which a serious allegation has been made against them. Given the seriousness of the offences that might be involved, I think that the new clause is a proportionate response to the situation. No driver should lose their livelihood lightly even for a short time, but when they are accused of an offence of sufficient seriousness to justify the revocation or suspension of their licence, it is appropriate that they should not continue to drive pending an appeal.
	I hope that I have at least partially reassured the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and other hon. Members, and that the new clauses will be added to the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

'(1) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005(c. 14) (agreements by Secretary of State and Office of Rail Regulation for that Office to carry out on his behalf functions other than powers to make instruments of legislative character), after sub-paragraph (3) insert
	(4) Sub-paragraph (3)(b) does not prevent the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail Regulation from entering into an agreement for that Office to carry out on his behalf the function of making orders under section 1 of the Level CrossingsAct 1983.
	(2) Subsection (2) of section 13 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) (agreements by Health and Safety Commission with Minister to perform functions on his behalf not to be taken to authorise performance of powers to make instruments of legislative character) is not to be taken to have prevented the performance by the Health and Safety Executive (on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission), in reliance on an agreement under subsection (1)(b) of that section, of the function of making orders under section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16).'. [Dr. Ladyman.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Hammond: I shall certainly apologise for the failure of Members on the Treasury Bench to vote with us on these matters in Committee.
	During the passage of the Bill in the other place six new clauses were added to deal with safety at level crossings. The Government stated at the time that they would remove them. In Committee, my hon. Friends and I aired and discussed those clauses and amendments, which were designed to protect the public, punish drivers who fail to obey signals at level crossings and who fail to obey bridge guidelines. To their shame, the Government voted against each of those sensible amendments to aid road safety.
	The Minister stated that the Government would make new proposals to improve safety at level crossings by clarifying the powers of the relevant authorities, yet today we have before us a new clause whose intent is merely to amend paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005, so that the Office of Rail Regulation can make regulations. Provisions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 allow the Health and Safety Commission to do the same thing.
	That is all that the Government propose to do and it is a huge disappointment to those of us who have spoken to Network Rail and to the operators. The Government cannot be aware of what Network Rail said about the seriousness of the offences being committedof drivers pulling out and overtaking queues, zigzagging around barriers or pulling out on to the line and reversing to avoid trains and vehicles. They cannot be aware of the seriousness of the impact of those offences and of the consequences for human life when a train collides with a car due to a failure to stop at red warning lights. The Minister seems to be sayingas he seemed to say in Committeethat red lights at a level crossing are exactly the same as those elsewhere. They are not. A driver who skips a red light at an ordinary road junction will not hit or derail a train. It should not need pointing out that a collision on a level crossing between a car and an express train travelling at speeds of up to 125 mph is likely to cause the death not only of the driver but scores of railway passengers.
	The new clause is a monumental lost opportunity. The Government had the option to write into the Bill sensible measures that would have had an enormous impact on road safety. Current fines and penalties for offenders at level crossingsoften serial offendersare insufficient. Those offences are at least as serious as drink driving and sentencing ought to reflect that. Magistrates could have had powers to impose substantial custodial sentences and endorsement penalties on persistent offenders. The matter should be on the face of the Bill. New clause 28 will not affect the problem and the Minister stands charged of failure to fulfil what he undertook to do in Committee.
	We are also dealing with new clauses 37 and 38. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am grateful to Lib Dem Members for proposing provisions that are so close in form and substance to those we tabled in another place and which we aired in Committee. If the Lib Dems had been writing a novel they might have been guilty of plagiarism, so some of them might want to join us and support the real thing rather than follow a pale imitation.
	We applaud new clauses 37 and 38 and the flexibility that would allow magistrates to pass custodial sentences. Our original amendments proposed slightly higher custodial sentences and endorsement penalties. None the less, we noted the Liberal Democrats' support in Committee and if they are minded to test their new clauses tonight I shall ask my hon. Friends in the official Opposition to support them.

Alistair Carmichael: In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), it is indeed my intention to test the opinion of the House on newclause 37.
	Before I address new clauses 37 and 38, I want to say a word or two about the Government's proposals. Clearly, they are not the new clauses that we were promised earlier in the deliberations on the Bill, and they do not strike at the fundamental problemthe lack of force behind the current offences. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon says, it is quite improper to suggest that running a red light at a level crossing is the same in its consequences or seriousness as doing so on a road.
	I, too, have seen the videos produced by Network Rail. Some of what is recorded is, frankly, chilling. The way in which some drivers are prepared to take risks at level crossings is exceptionally disturbing. This debate is partly about the message that we are sending, and I fear that the message being sent by the Government does not attach sufficient seriousness to the offences as they apply daily at level crossings.

Alistair Carmichael: That is line 6 in the copy that I have, but I fully accept that there is a typographical error. If the Government are prepared, or indeed if the House is prepared, to accept the new clause today, it would still be capable of straightforward remedy in the other place because its agreement on the new clause would have to be sought. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman raises a fatal objection, but I acknowledge that typographical error.
	The Minister has explained what lies behind the introduction of the Government new clauses. I have one or two concerns that I wish to explore with him in relation to the retrospective nature of the new clauses.
	The Minister wrote to me on 5 October, and I understand that copies of that letter and others have been placed in the Library. He stated that the Government were
	tabling the attached amendment to put beyond doubt that we can delegate the making of level crossing orders to ORR and to validate those orders made by HSE since 1990.
	What legal advice has he obtained on the matter? He will be aware that retrospective legislation is generally not encouraged and is generally considered to run contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is not without precedent, of course, but must be undertaken with due regard to proportionality. Is the Minister satisfied that the measure is proportionate in respect of its retrospective application? Will he place on the record when Ministers were first made aware that there was an issue, in order for the amendments to be brought before us?
	I place on record our acknowledgement of the fact that the Conservatives in the other place worked closely with my noble Friends on new clause 37, and I hope they will continue to do so.
	On new clause 38the bridge bashing clause, so to speakit would appear from the frequency of bridge bashing incidents that the current law is not acting asa deterrent to the drivers responsible for it, notwithstanding the awareness campaign launched recently by Network Rail. It is defined as
	an incident in which a vehicle, its load or equipment collides with a bridge.
	In 2003-04 bridge bashing was the 15th worst cause of cumulative delay, which was no less than 335,442 minutes. I am grateful to Network Rail or perhaps trainspotters.com for these statistics. Two hundred and twelve bridges have been struck more than three times a year, and Cook street in Glasgow was struck 17 times last year. Whitehouse road, Swindon, and Southend lane, Lower Sydenham were each struck 127 times since 1996. It is clear that this is a matter of significant difficulty and that it is causing substantial delay and expense to road users and to Network Rail. Current legislation is not adequate and accordingly we shall insist on our proposals in new clause 38.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On bridge bashing, may I ask the Minister whether any work has been done on systems to warn drivers of heavy goods vehicles and large goods vehicles of such collisions? Such a system would save many thousands of pounds. It is not a complex situation, and if we could get the support of the House it would save changing the law. It would be a positive step that would be greatly welcomed by those who have to pay out large sums for bridges that are damaged every day.

Stephen Ladyman: The point is that the courts do have the power to deal with them. Someone who recklessly endangers the lives of other people should be prosecuted not for jumping a red light but for dangerous driving. The police will prosecute if the evidence can be gathered. If people wilfully jump a red light on a level crossing, it might be dangerous driving, and if they jump the traffic lights around Parliament square they should be prosecuted accordingly.
	I challenge the hon. Gentleman to answer the following case that would be put to him if we were to accept that there is a difference between the two offences. What would he say when a parent brought the photograph of their dead child into this House and said, My daughteror sonwas killed on a street because somebody jumped a red light and you treat their offence differently from that of somebody who does the exact same on a level crossing? I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman were in my position now, he would find that unanswerable.
	Cases need to be judged on their merits. The police need to take a view on the appropriate offence, and the courts need to take a view on the appropriate sentence. Where a violation is blatant and dangerous, the driving can and should be prosecuted as such, with a significantly higher penalty, including custody, than that which applies to a normal breach of a red light.
	The hon. Gentleman accused me of making promises in Committee that I have not kept. I have to say to him that, again, he is not being entirely accurate. In Committee, I introduced into the Bill the measure that is now clause 50. That amendment had been agreed with, among others, our stakeholdersincluding Network Railin order significantly to improve the safety of level crossings. It is my understanding that Network Rail no longer supports the amendments that are before the House, and that it is happy with the position that has been agreed. In Committee I said that I was sympathetic to the argument that a specific tougher penalty would send a message to lunatics who frequently zig-zag through crossings, possibly endangering the safety of rail passengers, and that if there was evidence of a problem I would be prepared to consider using the subordinate powers under clauses 3 and 4, subject to the agreement of Parliament, to set a higher fixed penalty and a higher penalty points tariff for breaches of red lights at railway crossings.
	I still believe that the current offence of careless and inconsiderate driving with a maximum finesubject, again, to Parliamentary approval for clause 22of 5,000 is sufficient to deal with bridge strikes. In extreme cases where danger is caused to other road users it might be appropriate to prosecute for dangerous driving, but I believe that the power already exists to enable that.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked when the Government became aware of the need for new clause 28. Ministers were made aware of the issue early in September. I do not have a precise date, but if he is interested in knowing the precise date when it was first brought to our attention I am happy to provide it to him. However, I can assure him that as soon as it was brought to our attention Ministers moved rapidly to try to assess the issue.
	The Attorney-General was consulted on whether existing legislation is sufficiently robust before we decided to move to bridge the possible loophole. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who requested this information, that the clauses have been checked by counsel. I promise him that I shall have them checked again before the Bill passes to the other place.
	The loophole is possibly the last of the errors of the disastrous railway privatisation, and we moved to close it as soon as we discovered it. I should of course emphasise to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we will not know whether retrospection will be necessary unless somebody takes a test case to the courts and they confirm our interpretation of the law. It may well be that everything was all right; nevertheless, in our view it was essential to move as rapidly as we did to close any loophole in such an important area of the law.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

David Kidney: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making his case so powerfully. There is a serious problem with people driving under the influence of drugs. There is an offence already of driving when ability is impaired by drink or drugs, and to date the main problem in enforcement has been the absence of a roadside test that is accurate enough in detecting the presence of drugs in a person's body. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to deal with how we will detect and therefore enforce his proposed law?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I hope to deal with that point. To conclude the last point, I should just add that this summer Cleveland police felt it necessary to take out television advertising in their area in order to warn drivers about the consequences of taking drugs and then getting behind the wheel of a vehicle.
	The Government recognise that we have a serious problem and that is why under schedule 7 to the Road Traffic Act 2003 new powers were provided for the police to carry out impairment tests at the roadside. The problem is that the equipment for doing that is not up to the job, and we also have evidence from a study by Glasgow university that in one third of cases the equipment is not even capable of detecting those who have illegal drugs in their system.
	To take up the hon. Gentleman's point, new equipment is now available. It is colloquially called a drugalyser, and it is already being used effectively in Germany, Switzerland, Australia, and, for all I know, in other countries as well. It is, in essence, a hand-held device. It can detect cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine, and from one swab of saliva a police officer can test for a single drug in 90 seconds at the roadside, and he can test for more complex cocktails in six minutes. That is pretty astonishing to me, and it shows the extent to which the new technology has changed over the past couple of years, which we as legislators should take into account. It was a change in technology some39 years ago that really led to the change in the law, replacing the impairment test for driving with drink in the system with a test for excess alcohol, because we could measure the amount of alcohol in the blood or in the breath.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am listening carefully, because the hon. Gentleman has an extremely important point to make. However, I am a little worried that he does not seem to be addressing the problem of people who take medicinal drugs and do not treat them as though they have an effect on their driving ability when it is clear that they do so. Does he envisage some extension beyond simply the drugs that he has mentioned so that the amount in the bloodstream can be assessed?

Christopher Chope: Many people take the view that their driving is not impaired when they are over the excess alcohol limit. In order to cut through such arguments, Parliament decided to introduce an arbitrary cut-off limit, which relates to a lawful substance. However, we are discussing unlawful and illegal substances, the possession or use of which are criminal offences in themselves. If we were to introduce a law under the umbrella of road traffic legislation that deterred people from taking illegal drugs, a double benefit would arise. We are not comparing like with like when we compare alcohol with drugs, because one substance is lawful and the other is not.
	As I have said, it is already illegal to take such drugs, so if people take illegal drugs and get behind the wheel of a car, lorry or motorcycle, why should it not be an offence? New clause 1 would send out a strong message about the use of illegal drugs. One consequence of the 1967 Act was that Parliament gave an excuse to the weak-willed who were pressurised into drinking and driving. It allowed them to say, I am sorry, but I am not going to have another drink, because I am going to drive. If we pass new clause 1 into law tonight, we will send clubbers and other young people a similar message, which will allow them to turn to their friends and say, I am not going to take any drugs, because I am going to be at the wheel of a car tonight and do not want to cause an accident or injury, to lose my licence or to suffer a penalty. New clause 1 would reinforce some important messages.
	It is encouraging that my proposal has attracted wide support. More than 90 per cent. of those surveyed by  Auto Trader acknowledged that drug-driving is dangerous; 80 per cent. acknowledged that punishments for drug-drivers are too lenient; and 80 per cent. supported roadside testing for drugs. Perhaps most encouragingly of all, the insurance firm More Thn found that if we were to introduce roadside tests, more than one third of those who were surveyed and who currently take drugs and drive would be deterred from so doing, which would result in a one third reduction in drug-driving at a stroke. That would be a substantial win for road safety, which is sufficient justification for new clause 1 in itself. The RAC 2006 motoring report states that 55 per cent. of respondents named drug-driving as one of the top three road safety issues, and the RAC believes that drug-driving could be as prevalent and dangerous as drink-driving.
	Today, a demonstration has taken place outside Parliament by people who think that we do not discuss the issues that matter to the British people. This debate is an example of an issue that affects the British people. The issue is getting worse, and it has affected so many lives and caused untold misery. I therefore hope that both Opposition Members and Government Members will not hesitate to support new clause 1.

Owen Paterson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) on tabling the new clause, which represents our policy on the previous incarnation of the Bill which fell at the general election.
	Research shows that almost a quarter of those killed in road traffic accidents have illegal drugs in their bloodstream. There have been an increasing number of accidents in which the presence of drugs in the driver's body may have been a contributory factor in the cause of the crash. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, drug-driving is most common among 20 to 24-year-olds, and clubbers are particularly prone to taking control of a car in a chemically altered state. As a survey by the Scottish Executive showed, well over 80 per cent. of clubbers have driven after recreational drug use, often under the misguided apprehension that drugs can improve their driving skills. In fact, as the BMA and other authorities have shown, commonly taken illegal drugs such as cannabis cause concentration to wander, affect reaction times, and can cause paranoia, drowsiness, distorted perception and a sense of disorientation, all of which could lead to loss of control at the wheel.
	Cannabis is the most commonly traced drug, with more than 800,000 people travelling under its influence every year. A study produced by the Transport Research Laboratory established that people who drove a car at 66 mph had a stopping distance of about 270 ft, but after smoking a joint that increased on average by15 per cent. to 310 ft. In a slalom test, those who had just smoked a joint knocked over 30 per cent. more cones. Similarly, cocaine is a psychostimulant that leads to misjudging driving speeds and stopping distances and gives a distorted sense of light and sound and a feeling of overconfidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned amphetamines, but ketamines, LSD and magic mushrooms also strongly influence the senses and give drivers a sense of unreality, placing themselves and other road users in danger.
	As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, there has been a problem with detection, but I understand that detection methods have dramatically improved. It could be said that one advantage of these drugs is that they remain detectable for longer than alcohol. The urine test EMITenzyme-multiplied immunoassay techniquecan establish the presence of amphetamines for up to two to four days; that of barbiturates for a day and of long-acting barbiturates for two to three weeks; that of cannabinoids for three to 30 days; that of cocaine for two to four days; that of opiates for two to four days, and that of anabolic steroids for up to 14 days. The technology has moved on and my hon. Friends' proposals are therefore considerably more practical.
	We have slipped behind other countries. A meeting of the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety took place in 2002, with representatives of 16 nations and 12 US states. It established that most statutes required proof of impairment owing to the use of an illegal drug. That legislative approach has been difficult to enforce, because proving that the drug caused the impairment has been a major problem. Germany, Belgium and eight US states have established a per se law, which avoids having to prove impairment due to the drug. That approach allows the prosecution to be based solely on the analytic detection of drugs in body fluids such as blood or urine.
	The Belgian experience shows how a country got a grip on the problem, developed a strategic plan, gradually changed legislation, overcame a myriad political problems and implemented a comprehensive drug-driving strategy. The result is that, sadly, we have fallen behind. The detection rate for drugged driving is much higher in Norway750 cases per million inhabitants. In Finland, it is 190 cases per million inhabitants; in Sweden, it is90 cases per million, whereas we are down at 30 cases per million. Conservative Members believe that the technology has caught up. Other countries have shown what can be done and we will support new clause 1 if it is pressed to a vote.
	The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) is not here and perhaps she will therefore not press new clause 5.  [Interruption.] Indeed, perhaps she has fallen asleep. A diagnosed narcoleptic is required to declare his condition to the DVLA and failure to do so voids his insurance cover. The DVLA will generally issue a temporary licence to a narcoleptic, renewable every three years, provided that the applicant's GP can satisfy the DVLA that the condition is controlled by treatment. If that were properly enforced, it would appear to cover the intention of new clause 5. I shall be interested in the Minister's comments on that.
	I had a most interesting visit to an organisation called TTC groupTelford Training Consultantsduring the recess. It managed to get itself on the front page of our local papers by pointing out that the new pub opening hours were sweeping up a large number of people who were unaware that, although they behaved responsibly, they had alcohol in their blood that put them over the limit. I was told of a case of a highly responsible persona police constablewho had gone out for a curry, been measured in the amount that he drank, deliberately gone to bed at 10 o'clock, got up for an early shift, but unfortunately had a bump and was found to be over the limit. The visit showed the importance of education.
	I was especially struck by two points. First, 10 years ago, wines were 9 per cent. alcohol by volume whereas they now average 12.5 to 13 per cent. Secondly, the group presented an interesting demonstration about glasses. The standard measure is 125 ml but people are frequently offered 250 ml as a standard or small glass. I cannot believe that many hon. Members in the Chamber would want to offer their friends a small drink. However, 250 ml is nearly half a pint. The group did a demonstration with differently shaped glasses. The shapes were deceptive. I benefited from that brief introduction, and it was proved that re-educating offenders reduced recidivism by 50 per cent. Such courses are of low cost to the taxpayer. Those who go on them have to pay 100 and 150. I would prefer to go down that route rather than chase a tight target.
	I appreciate that the hon. Member for Stafford has spent much time on the matter, which he raised in Committee. However, trying to reduce the figure from 80 mg to 50 mg when we are struggling to enforce80 mg is not the right way to proceed. I should like the effort to be put into re-education, and I believe that the Government share that view.
	Bluntly, we need more traffic policemen. They have declined from 9,201 in 1997 to 7,103. Conservative Members believe that more active enforcement is the way ahead. Let us get 80 mg established. We have made massive progress but rather than trying to screw the figure down to 50 mg, education and more active enforcement are more sensible uses of Government time.
	The retesting requirement in new clause 39 would not be used in the context of testing skills but is simply an addition to section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which lists convictions, and requires, after obligatory or discretionary disqualification, the court to instruct the person who has been convicted to take another test. I do not like the idea of taking a driving test being part of the punishment. Again, I prefer the route of education. The little bit of extra research that I have done since I went to Telford convinced me that education would be more effective.
	Amendment No. 51 deals with alco-locks. The matter was raised in Committee and Conservative Members' opinion has not changed. I know that the Minister does not like my rattling off stuff from the internet so I shall not go into detail at length. Evidence from the United States, Australia and Canada shows a 40 per cent. or even a 90 per cent. reduction in the rate of drink-driving repeat offences. However, that appears to happen only as long as the alco-locks are in place. In Europe, where we are only beginning to establish such programmes, the Swedes have a programme with 900 drink-driving offenders, but because they have been so strict, almost a third of the participants have dropped out. France is about to introduce a pilot project in Annecy and we have not even started. We fear that the programmes are a bit of a distraction.
	In Belgium, the Belgian Institute for Road Safety has produced a report. Under the heading, Effectiveness. Has the project reached its objective?, it reported that no project results were available for evaluation. We believe that it is a little early to decide about such projects. They could be a distraction and, again, we would like the effort put into re-education because when the locks are removed, we believe that the hardcore cases will revert. We are also convinced that a strong sentencea short, sharp shockcould be more effective.
	That is a quick canter through our thoughts on the group of the amendments.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is a perfectly fair point. However, I do not think that we should be quite so blas about creating offences that would have enormous resource implications for the courts and for police time if the benefit to be derived from them were not proportionate. If we sought to prosecute everyone who was found to be driving with a trace of an illegal drug in their body, it would take up an enormous amount of court timeand to what effect?
	We are dealing with the Road Safety Bill, and it is entirely appropriate that we should have regard to the test that we have always had: that of a person's fitness to drive being impaired through the use of drink or drugs. Drink and drugs are relevant to road safety because they impair a person's fitness to drive, and once we move away from that simple test, we open up a whole range of conduct for examination. It would be very easy for someone to say that they did not know that there would still be a trace of drink or drugs in their bloodstream.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to train drivers and pilots, but I cannot recall the existence of any criminal offence in that context. If he can enlighten me on that, I will be interested, but I cannot think of an instance in which a pilot or train driver would be guilty of a criminal offence merely by having a trace of drink or drugs in their body. If he or she were unfit to drive or fly through having used them, that would of course be a different matter. Pilots, train drivers and others who are found, through a work place testing scheme, to have a trace of an illegal drug in their system are often caught by their employer's disciplinary procedures, but that does not involve a criminal offence. Once we start to blur the distinction between a criminal offence and a disciplinary offence under employment law, we will be going down a dangerous track.
	I should like to say a word or two in defence of the present approach in road traffic law, which places the emphasis on impairment and unfitness to drive. This point was also made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), and I am sorry that he is no longer here, because, as a court practitioner, he has an important contribution to make to the debate. In practical terms, there is usually a reasonable ground for a driver to be stoppednormally that of erratic or defective driving. Thereafter, a breath test will almost certainly be carried out. If that test is negative, the police officer involved should surely look for another reason for the impairment. All sorts of other symptoms might be present, including dilated pupils or slurred speech, depending on the illegal substance in question. My recollection from my time as a criminal court solicitor and as a prosecutor is that a lengthy checklist is gone through, which would thereafter entitle the officer to arrest the person and take them back to the police station where the full impairment test could be undertaken.
	As the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly said, a number of much more sophisticated devices are now on the market, and I hope that they will be tested and, if appropriate, approved for use by the Department for Transport. All these factors will improve the workability of the present law on unfitness to drive as a result of the use of drink or drugs. I am not without sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I certainly do not underestimate the scale of the difficulty facing us in relation to drug- driving, but I remain to be convinced that his new clause is the panacea that he suggests. It could create problems as well as solutions.

Alistair Carmichael: No, I approach this from the point of view of first principles. The reason that we arrived at what has been described as the rather arbitrary limit for alcohol was that it was decided that that was the level at which a driver's ability to respond would be impaired. The question of a limit is therefore consistent with the general approach of punishing those who drive while unfit through their taking of drink or drugs. I cannot as yet envisage a mechanism by which it would be possible to set a similar level for illegal substances. It might happen, but I think that it is highly unlikely. We shall probably always rely on the question of fitness to drive in relation to drug-driving. There is a lot more to be done on the training of police officers, prosecutors and the judiciary as to what constitutes fitness to drive while under the influence of drugs, but to depart from the principle of assessing fitness in the way proposed in the new clause is unnecessary and would be a step too far.
	The hon. Member for Stafford referred to new clause 30, which he supported tonight. Indeed, he has supported similar proposals many times in the past. He has already made many of the points that I was going to make, and I shall not reiterate them. The Department for Transport has demonstrated through its own research that there could be a reduction of about 50 fatalities and 250 serious injuries per year if the Government were to adopt this measure. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that the Minister sets up a false choice by suggesting that we can target either those who are grossly over the limit or those who fall into the rather narrower band. I happen to think that, for very little additional effort and use of resources by the police and the prosecution services, it would be worth saving those 50 lives and preventing those 250 serious injuries every year. As the hon. Gentleman also said, the proposed lower limit would bring the United Kingdom into line with virtually every other country in western Europe.
	New clause 39 would bring within the ambit of section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 all those offences that involve driving while under the influence of alcohol. We are proposing a fairly measured response here, by seeking to introduce a requirement for someone who has been disqualified from driving for a drink-driving offence to re-sit their driving test before they are given their licence back. The proposal would apply to anyone who received a sentence of disqualification in excess of the minimum 12-month period under section 5 of that Act. This reflects a practice that has already been adopted in many courts up and down the country in all the jurisdictions that make up the United Kingdom.
	We should also have regard to how road traffic law has developed in a wider context. There is something profoundly anomalous about a new driver with six points on his or her licence, as a result of perhaps two speeding offences, being required to re-sit the test as a result of the new drivers' regulations while somebody who has been convicted of a drink-driving offence that merits more than the minimum sentence of disqualification does not have to go through the same procedure.
	Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53, 52 and 54 deal with the use of alcohol ignition interlocks, or AILs, which the Government are, bravely and quite rightly, bringing into use through the Bill. However, I have severe reservations about how they are doing that, because introducing the use of AILsor alcolocks, as they are more colloquially knownas a mechanism by which somebody might reduce the period of disqualification sends out the worst possible signal. The development of those devices offers us particular opportunities, but we are in danger of missing them by using AILs in the way that the Government suggest.
	The amendments propose a period following disqualification in which the AIL would be fitted at the disqualified person's expense, thereafter ensuring a continued period of protection for the public following the expiry of that disqualification. The proposal is not, I would suggest, a silver bullet. It is not foolproof and there are certain ways to get round it, but I say to the Minister that it would be a further defence that would enable the effort to be targeted on those who pose the greatest risk to our communitiesthe repeat offenders.
	By erecting that further barrier and by making things difficult for such people, we would have the opportunity to reduce the number of people who come before the courts as repeat drink-drivers. That has been borne out by research in other parts of the world. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) touched on that in referring to a 90 per cent. reduction. That is, in fact, a 90 per cent. reduction in reoffending rates, which the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada found to have taken place after the trial of an AIL in that jurisdiction. That also follows the experience in a number of states in the United States, which have also taken results-based decisions to use AILs following trials.
	We commend and support the Government on the introduction of AILs through the Bill, but we believe that the manner in which they want to use them is not appropriate and can be improved. I hope that the Government will give the closest possible consideration to the improvements outlined in our amendmentsNos. 50 to 54.

Stephen Ladyman: I must take issue with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about the figure for road deaths being stuck at about 3,200. If he looks at the figures for the last two or three years, he will see that they are again on a downward trend. Of course, once a number of road deaths is reachedalbeit one that is still way to high; I acknowledge that immediatelythat is, compared with the distances travelled, the lowest in the world, it becomes increasingly difficult to reduce the figure. We must expect that, and we must expect the rate of improvement to slow. Nevertheless, we still have that rate of improvement, and the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that messages about drugs and about drug taking and driving will play a key part.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we need to do more to get the message across. I say to him that, to get the message over on drug-driving, we try to target those who are most likely to be drug-drivers. I might be wrong, but I do not think that Conservative Members of Parliament are a target group for that message, but young people are, so we target it on the radio channels that young people listen to, pop concerts and other places where young people congregate.
	Our evidence suggests that we are pretty good at targeting those messages, and we hit that target group, but does that go far enough? No, it does not. So, let me say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that I entirely agree with the sentiments that he has put to us tonight. If I was in a position to tell the House that there is a robust method of detection and that there is agreement that there is a correlation between the level of a drug in someone's system and the level of impairment when driving, I would be here with a Government proposal to introduce the measures to the House. However, we do not have that robust system of detection and we do not have that agreement on what is an appropriate level of drug taking to indicate impairment. We are somewhat stuck over a way to move forward.
	The hon. Gentleman, in introducing the new clause, essentially told the House, Look, we don't have agreement on what an appropriate level is, so let's just say it's any level. If it's any level, you're breaking the law. That is entirely inconsistent with existing legislation, which requires a level of impairment. In a moment, I shall come on to the problems of detecting the amount of drugs in somebody's system, but I also suggest that a key problem with detection is exactly what is being detected.
	The active ingredient of cannabis spends only a short period in the blood. Detection systems therefore tend not to detect the active ingredient that would impair driving. Detection systems detect a metabolite of cannabis that stays in the blood for a long time. The presence of that metabolite in someone's system does not, however, mean that their driving performance would be impaired; it simply means that they have used cannabis at some time in the previous few days. If one is trying to devise a detection system for an employer who wants to make sure that none of his employees has ever used drugs, it is a perfectly acceptable test. The presence of the metabolite allows one to say that the person has used drugs, although one does not know whether they used them yesterday or last week. Therefore, if an employer has a policy not to employ those who use drugs, he can say that he will no longer employ that person. If one is trying to test whether someone's ability to drive a car is impaired, however, testing for that metabolite is not reasonable. That is one of the key problems with detection.

Stephen Ladyman: I do raise that with my Home Office colleagues, and roads policing is part of the national policing plan. If we continue to have concerns about whether roads are being properly policed, I shall have to raise the matter with them again and ensure that it is addressed in future versions of the plan; but I hope that the argument based on the reduction in casualties, and indeed the strong link between criminality on the roads and general criminality, will convince chief constables that they need to provide proper resources.
	For all those reasons, I urge the House to resist the proposal to reduce the level further at this stage.
	The Liberal Democrats, who tabled new clause 39, raised the question of mandatory disqualification. I believe that the new clause is among a number of amendments inspired by the insurance branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I am happy to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their interest in the matter and the work that they are doing. The views and constructive ideas of stakeholders are always welcome, and I can see the logic behind the proposal, but I simply do not accept it.
	When the original provisions of clause 36 were made following the road traffic reviewthe so-called North reportit was decided that while mandatory re-testing should apply to drivers who committed the most serious road traffic offences, such as dangerous driving and worse, it was less appropriate for drink-drivers, whose driving skills, it might be argued, were less in question than their judgment about drinking.
	I remind the House that the vast majority of drink-drivers are disqualified for 12 to 18 months, during which time their driving skills may not diminish as much as those of drivers who are disqualified for longer. More recently, however, it has been considered that the worst drink-drivers who were disqualified for longer periods, such as two years or more, should be subject to a re-test because of the length of time for which they were off the road. Clause 36 will enable that to be done by means of secondary legislation, but it will be subject to further consultation. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not press his new clause.
	Finally, let me deal with the issue of alcohol ignition interlocks, which feature in a number of amendments proposed, again, by the Royal Bank of Scotland. If I understand correctly, their purpose is to impose a wider application of alcohol interlock programmes by extending their availability to all drink-drivers, and to require courts to impose orders unless they believe that there is good reason for not doing so.
	We currently want to target the most serious offenders, and certainly those who cannot stop themselves from reoffending. That is where we can expect both the incentive and the commitment to participate fully, and, of course, where we might expect to achieve the best accident risk reduction. There may be a case for a more widespread application, but it has yet to be made. Best practice advice based on research suggests that a period of interlock use of less than a year is not likely to provide a benefit, and for shorter periods the fixed costs of installation and training may make it less cost-effective.
	As for making the scheme mandatory, I have some difficulty with the idea of courts' imposing such cost burdens on drivers, some of whom would not have the financial means to undertake the programme. Such drivers might have to sell their cars to pay for it. The Department would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with insurance companies about drink-driving and other aspects of road safety.
	I remind Members that our proposal is modelled on the successful drink-drive rehabilitation programme introduced by the last Administration in the early 1990s and rolled out nationally by this Government in 2000. In making the decision to undertake the course at their own expense, offenders recognise the value of learning how to change their behaviour. We should be very cautious about deviating from an approach that has served us well so far. I hope that the House will reject those amendments as well.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. Italy did move on this matter, but there were objections to that not only from Great Britain, but from France and Germany. The European Commission is almost certainlyit has started the preliminary stagesabout to begin infraction proceedings against Italy. As I have said repeatedly, no matter how strong the merits of retro-reflective tapes, we have to conform to ECE regulations. We cannot move ahead of those regulations without facing the same measures that Italy will face.

Owen Paterson: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who managed to get his name down first on our amendment. We are happy to join him, because this is a ridiculous situation. We debated the issue at some length in Committee and the facts are clear. Indeed, the Minister agrees with us. We had all-party support, because everybody agrees that night-time collisions are a problem.
	In 2001, there were 9,000 collisions in which an HGV was struck by another vehicle. In 34 per cent. of those cases, the HGV was struck on the side. Research by the university of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late. The same study also found that adding retro-reflective contour markings reduced accidents involving trucks and passenger cars in conditions of poor visibility by 95 per cent. In the USA, where retro-reflective markings are mandatory, side and rear impact collisions involving HGVs have fallen by 41 per cent. The Loughborough report, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, showed that fitting ECE 104 markings to new HGVs would cost about 100, or just 0.001 per cent. of the vehicle's cost.
	The measure is inevitable. As long ago as 2004, the Commission recommended that all new HGVs in the EU weighing over 3.5 tonnes should be fitted with ECE 104 retro-reflective tape. It is not only the Italians who have broken ranks. They went ahead and imposed this simple measure, which has a remarkable impact, and the Greeks, Spanish and French are also considering similar action. The Dutch transport safety board has also recommended the compulsory use of retro-reflective contour marking. We do not, therefore, understand why our Government are being so timid. I am astonished that the Minister said that he had been involved in action against the Italians. That is bizarre.
	The total cost of road accidents in 2001 was17.76 billion. The markings cost only 100 per lorry, but the cost of having a lorry off the road is 212 a day.

Owen Paterson: That is a bizarre way of looking at cost. To a haulier, costs arise when their trucks are not running on the roads. If trucks are not run into, they carry on running, and the haulier does not have to bear the cost of having to repair them, will not have them off the road, and will not lose business. The Minister's way of looking at the issue is completely inverted [Interruption.] Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury's and John Lewis have already started to use retro-reflective tape voluntarily, because they know that it is worth while to do so.
	It is extraordinary that this should happen in what is supposed to be a sovereign Parliament. Members of all parties agree that this very simple and cheap measure would save lives. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)it is a pity that he is not heremade a very good comment in Committee:
	I do not like breaking the law, although I am tempted to break certain European laws because they are barmy. It is a personal opinion, but I think it is barmy that we have to wait until 2011 to save lives.[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 March 2006; c. 149-150 .]

Owen Paterson: So it is a choice between infraction procedures and hanging around until 2011, by which time there will have been 1,540 more collisions. We are discussing a road safety Bill at a time when more than 3,000 people a year are killed on our roads, and before us is a measure that is backed by responsible Members of Parliament of every single party. The Minister is being utterly pusillanimousabsolutely feeble to a degree. We will push the new clause to a Division later, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will join us. The situation is utter nonsense. Our very simple measure would save lives, and we feel strongly about it. We believe that given that Members of Parliament think that the new clause would save lives, they should have the right to vote on it, and it should be made law.
	Moving on to the other new clauses in this group, we have a similar case in respect of mirrors. We find it extraordinary that the Minister, as a Kent MP, did not back new clause 21. I cited in Committee the terrible example of what happened to the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who was driving in the fast lane of a motorway in Kent. Alongside was a Hungarian truck that was correctly set up according to Hungarian regulations, with mirrors on only the left side of the vehiclethat is, on the driver's side in Hungary. The truck was completely blind on the right-hand sidethe offside, where my hon. Friend's wife was drivingand the driver forced her into the central barrier. I am glad to say that she was not hurt, but we have found that there is a consistent pattern, as those accidents are always happening. It is such a simple measure to make it mandatory to install mirrors on both sides of all heavy trucks operating in the UK. The Hungarian driver was aghast and horrified by what had happened, but he was operating within the rules as they stand. Again, the Minister has been utterly feeble, which I find bizarre considering that he represents a marginal Kent seat.
	There is a political angle to the issue, because why should not just British citizens but all those who come to this countrythere were 1.5 million vehicles from abroad here last yearbe put at risk for the simple lack of a mirror on the continental blind side? The Minister appears to be lagging behind the European Commission, which only last week said that it would require large trucks to install blind-spot mirrors. EU member states have to improve infrastructure on vehicles, and the Commission would ensure that vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tonnes installed new mirrors so that they could see not just cars but motorbike riders and cyclists. It said in a statement:
	Every year approximately 400 road users lose their lives in accidents, because lorry drivers fail to notice them when taking a right turn.
	All that the new clause would do is pre-empt the European Commission and introduce a measure with profound safety benefits in this country.
	Again, other countries have already taken action; the Dutch and Belgians have introduced measures on blind-spot mirrors. I therefore hope that the Minister who, as I said, has been utterly pusillanimous on the issue of retro-reflective tape, will steel himself to take action on this issue. The measure would be very cheap, as it does not cost much to install mirrors on heavy goods vehicles. It will soon be mandatory to do so, but let us get on and make it mandatory now.
	Turning to new clause 22, it is the same old story. Every year, about seven people are killed in this country while hitching up a tractor to a parked articulated trailer. The trailer's air brakes remain on until it is connected to the tractor's air supply. When the tractor reverses, there is a large clunk as the fifth wheel engages with the trailer and the whole unit remains stable, because the air brakes are still locked on the trailer. All too often, however, the driver does not engage the handbrake because he believes that the whole unit is solid. After jumping down from the tractor he climbs on to the trailer to connect the Susie hoses to engage the air. As soon as the air passes into the trailer, the brakes disengage, and the whole unit moves. In some cases, sadly, the driver panics, and while trying to jump off and scramble into the cab he is run over. In other cases, the united vehicle rolls up or down the slope, crushing someone else.
	Our extraordinarily simple technical measure would, we estimate, prevent seven deaths a year. The kit would cost about 100, as we are merely suggesting that an alarm is triggered if the tractor is left with the handbrake off. In Committee, the Minister said that he could not proceed with the measure for all the reasons that have just been given, as the infrastructure of vehicles is a European competence. However, the European Commission is not composed of unmenschenits members are human beings. If he engaged with them and talked to themhe said that he would do so in Committee, and he has had the whole summer to do sowe could achieve a result. The measure is terribly simple and would save seven lives a year.
	Finally, new clause 27, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), requires daytime running safety lights to be installed on motorbikes. On the whole, we think that that is a good idea. Indeed, a study by the Institute of Transport Economics at Oslo in Norway discovered that it resulted in a 32 per cent. reduction in multi-party daytime accidents. The proposal therefore has merits, as information about permanent lights on motorbikes from the Transport Accident Commission in Victoria in Australia demonstrates. We therefore support the new clause. Our main aim, however, is to persuade the Minister to steel himself to take action. We have tabled three measures that would save lives, that are very cheap, and that have been introduced in other European countries. Will the Minister therefore accept our new clauses?

David Davies: I rise to support my colleagues in their new clauses. In answering a point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), may I say that as somebody who has worked in road haulage for a number of years I am not aware of any lobbying from within the industry to prevent lorries, particularly new ones, from being fitted with reflective tape? I can understand why a haulier who owns 50 or 100 vehicles would baulk at paying what I think would be considerably more than 100 a time to have that fleet fitted with reflective tape retrospectively. But if this measure is to apply to new vehicles and if the cost is to be only 100 a time, it is a drop in the ocean for any haulage operator. Those who operate new vehicles tend to be the big boys anyway, and they are usually very keen to adopt any new safety procedures.
	The hon. Gentleman plaintively says, It's a no-brainer. Where is the opposition coming from? It is clear that it is coming not from the industry but from Brussels or whoever it is within the bowels of the United Nations who decides what sort of reflective tape should go round a lorry. That is a decision that should be made in a sovereign nation. If we have signed up to legislation saying that somebody else should be making that decision, I say that we should unsign it and say that this is a matter that should be devolved. We are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves in this country what sort of reflective, illuminated tape should go round our HGVs.
	Frankly, it was even more astounding that the Minister then went on to say that he has been responsible for taking action against states that have pressed ahead with the legislation before the UN or the EU has got around to it, because it is anti-competitive. I speak as somebody who knows a bit about the hardships faced by people in the haulage industry. If the Minister is worried about anti-competitive measures, why is he not looking at the fact that vehicle fines and tachograph procedures are not properly enforced on the drivers of foreign vehicles that come here? Why is he not looking at fuel duty? Every British haulier could tell him that we are paying far more in fuel duty than anywhere else in Europe, and that we have to pay to use roads on the continent, yet when continental drivers come over here, they do not have to pay for any of that. That is why so many of the very large operators are now registering their companies in the Netherlands and elsewhereto get out of paying some of the taxes. As a result, British hauliers are going out of business.
	I particularly wanted to speak to new clause 21. This, too, is a bit of a no-brainer. I do not know whether the LGV test has changed significantly since I took it back in the early 1990s. At the time, it involved a minimum of two weeks' training and at least 40 minutes was spent taking the test itself. We got those licences and took that training in a flat-bed vehicle with a tractor fitted with a rear window and a rear-view mirror, so it was relatively easy. As soon as one gets out on to the roads, one is normally driving either a box-type vehicle or a curtain-sider. Even if one is driving a flat-bed, obviously for much of the time it is fully loaded. I have driven many kinds of articulated vehicles both here and abroad, and my recollection is that very few of the cabs are fitted with a rear-view mirror. Even if there is a rear window it is quite distracting for the driver to look in a rear-view mirror because, most of the time, they will be driving a fully loaded vehicle and will be unable to see anything out of it.
	It is obvious that if the driver of a 40-ft, 40 tonne vehicle has only the driver-side mirror to look into when trying to move back across from the fast lane or, on a motorway that forks, to go into a left-hand lane, they are driving a death-trap. Driving on the continent, the danger is greatly magnified. So once again, we have a new clause that is a complete and utter no-brainer. In fact, it was news to me that someone could drive an articulated or goods vehicle without a mirror on the passenger side. I find that quite extraordinary. No responsible haulier would send a vehicle out like that, although I do know from experience that there are plenty of irresponsible ones around, so it would not surprise me if one or two do.
	I can add to the debate only by pointing out that a 3.5 tonne vehicle is still a dangerous one to be driving without a passenger-side mirror. Most people would think of such a vehicle as being a Ford transit, but there are larger vehicles that have a slightly lower payload but nevertheless can travel at 80 mph. I would not know that from experience of course, but many of them will be able to do that. Those vehicles will often be in the middle lane if not the fast lane of the motorway, and the idea that they could be changing lanes without a passenger mirror is absolutely frightening.
	We must bear it in mind that any sort of goods vehicle will often be loaded, and any loaded vehicle, whether it is a flat-bed or some sort of a box, will not allow a proper view out of the rear-view mirror. We should therefore not only be pushing for HGVsanything over 3.5 tonnesto have a passenger mirror as quickly as possible, but extending that to any kind of goods vehicle.
	I am totally anti-regulation, as a rule. I am completely against piling further unnecessary regulation on to the haulage industry because I have seen so many of my friends going bankrupt as a result of unnecessary regulation, but this is one bit of regulation that no responsible operator would want to avoid. It is one thing that we ought to do to increase safety on the roads and ensure that responsible hauliers are not operating at a disadvantage because the irresponsible cowboys are driving vehicles that should not be let loose on the road.

Stephen Ladyman: I do not know how many different ways I can say it: the United Kingdom is a law-abiding nation that signs treaties and then tries to live by them. We believe in the rule of law, and when we agree to follow certain rules and laws, we do not break them and we do our best to make sure that everybody else complies with them. That is the way we live our lives because once we break that rule as a Parliamentonce we say that there are some laws that we as a nation can ignorewe are saying that everybody can ignore any law that they do not particularly like.
	We signed a treaty that stated that because there are competitive issues involved in the type approval of vehicles, we would abide by rules laid down at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Why did we choose UNECE to lay down those rules? I cannot tell the House that. I was not involved at the time that we made those agreements. I suspect that that occurred under the previous Government. The reason is that not every state in Europe is a member of the European Union, and we needed a set of type approval rules that would cover not just the European Union but Switzerland, Norway and any other country whose vehicles might be driving through Europe, so we agreed to follow UNECE regulations.
	European lawthe European Community regulations requires us to go along with UNECE regulations on type approval. Those regulations provide for retro-reflective tape to be made mandatory. In the discussions we are pressing for that to happen as soon as possible, but that is unlikely to be before January 2010. We will press harder to try and get it done faster. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will accept that assurance from me, but the date is likely to be 2010.
	The measure may involve only a small amount of money on the price of a new vehicle, but it is a point of principle that we must have the type approval. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) accuses me from the Opposition Front Bench of being pusillanimous for not agreeing to break the law, which, as I have explained, is the position he is trying to put me in. He calls that pusillanimous. I call it the reason why we have a Parliament in this country.
	The hon. Gentleman then argues that we should obey the same rule in respect of close proximity mirrors and the fitting of mirrors on the side of vehicles. He spoke to the new clause calling for the fitting of close proximity mirrors. The same rules that he says we should break when it suits us are the rules that will require those to be fitted to new vehicles in Europe from the beginning of next year. If we decide not to obey the rules, will we accept that people elsewhere in Europe can decide not to bother with close proximity mirrors and drive into our country in future? Is it only when we agree with a set of rules under the treaty that we will obey them?

Stephen Ladyman: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will press for as early an implementation as possible. If it can be done earlier than 2010, we will press for that, but I have a duty to give the House a realistic assessment of how long such matters usually take. Our assessment is that it will probably take until 2010. If we can get agreement to implement the measure more quickly, we will do so. There is nothing to stop the voluntary fitting of the tape by anyone who is buying a new vehicle. What we are not allowed to do is require the mandatory fitting of it by everybody who brings a new lorry into Europe in the intervening time, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be pressing as hard as possible to try and get the issue resolved as early as we can.

Stephen Ladyman: I come now to some of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall give him an opportunity to intervene in a moment. I shall be very rude about him and I expect he will want to intervene. When he spoke about passenger-side mirrors, he claimed an expertise which I am not convinced he has. We are not talking about passenger-side mirrors. Of course lorries must have passenger-side mirrors. We are talking about an additional close proximity mirror, which will be required by lawthe same laws and rules to which the Opposition objectto be fitted in new vehicles from January next year.
	The new clause would require us to make that mandatory now. By the time we have Royal Assent and we have done all the paperwork and got the lawyers involved, it will be quicker to wait for the new European requirement to be introduced in January. The hon. Member for Monmouth kept speaking about passenger mirrors. We are not dealing with passenger-side mirrors. Neither he nor the hon. Member for North Shropshire correctly referred to them as close proximity mirrors. They and other speakers implied that the problem that we face with the side-swiping of vehicles would disappear once close proximity mirrors were fitted.
	I challenge that, although I think close proximity mirrors will have a role to play in reducing the incidence of side-swiping. The hon. Member for North Shropshire gave the statistics for the number of accidents caused by side-swiping as vehicles change lane. What he did not tell the House was that 80 per cent. of vehicles involved in such accidents already had close proximity mirrors fitted. So close proximity mirrors are not the solutionor at least they are not the only solutionto this problem.
	That is why the Department for Transport has been showing real leadership across the European Union in exploring the question of what is the genuine blind spot that causes these accidents. We are about to start a trial with a Fresnel lens, which we will distribute to a number of lorry drivers coming into some of the channel ports, because we believe that such lenses allow the driver to see not the blind spot that close proximity mirrors reveal, but a blind spot that appears to exist to the side and just to the front of heavy goods vehicles. If that experiment is successful, we will have gone a long way toward preventing side-swiping.
	Close proximity mirrors will reduce some of the problem and they will be fitted from the start of the new year, but we should not kid ourselves or anybody else that they will be the solution to the problem, because, as the statistics show, 80 per cent. of side-swiping incidents are caused by vehicles that already have close proximity mirrors. I should also point out to the House that none of the four fatalities caused by this sort of accident involved a foreign-registered vehicle; they were all British vehicles.

Stephen Ladyman: I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's suggestion is considered, but I hope that he will accept the general principle from me that resolving the issue of side-swiping is not the simple matter that some people, and some newspapers in particular, have portrayed it to be. However, we are determined to get to the bottom of it.
	I come now to audible warning devices. The hon. Member for North Shropshire said that I had made certain promises in Committee and I have honoured those promises. My officials raised the matter at the meeting in September of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on brakes and running gear. We asked for information from international sources on the scale of incidence of runaway trucks and trailers and the level of the problem that he has identified, and member states represented there have shown considerable interest in the fact that we have raised this issue. We are waiting for responses from them and we intend to pursue the matter through the UNECE and hopefully therefore obtain buy-in from all continental member states in order to resolve the issue in due course. On that basis, I hope that he will not push the new clause to a vote.
	With regard to day-time running lights there is the new clause with its literal meaning proposed by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), and then there is his real concern, which I share, that changes in the EU might lead to mandatory fitting of day-time running lights and even their mandatory use on all vehicles on all the roads of Europe. I have strongly opposed that in all forums that I havebeen represented at. In particular, I made strong representations at the Transport Council that that is not in the interests of road safety for exactly the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. In this country, because motorcycles use day-time running lights, they have greater visibility than they would do if everyone used such lights.
	Given that one of the most serious problems that we face in this country is to bring down sharply the stubborn rate of motorcyclist fatalities, we cannot afford to compromise an important safety concernfor motorcyclists. Therefore, I have made strong representations at all the meetings at which I have been represented and I intend to do so again at the ministerial road safety conference in Verona in two or three weeks' time. I am making a presentation about motorcycle safety in general and what we need to do to try to reduce motorcycle casualties, but one of my key points will be the need to maintain the existing state control on the issue, because opinion on whether to compel the use of day-time running lights will vary in different states. In this country, I firmly believe that we should not do so.
	However, I am increasingly pessimistic. The tide is running against me. A number of powerful states believe that it is a good idea. I believe that they think that it is a panacea and an easy solution to which their public will not object and which will help to reduce their casualty statistics. I do not think that it will reduce their casualty statistics, but it will affect our casualty statistics. I will continue to fight the good fight, but I cannot promise that I will win.

Stephen Ladyman: The right hon. Gentleman is right to identify that heritage vehicles often require special treatment, and I shall do my best to make that case, if the issue arises.
	I have covered all the amendments, but I shall briefly return to retro-reflective tape. I hope that the assurance that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) encourages him to withdraw new clause 12, because I will do my best to push the issue as urgently as I can.

Stephen Ladyman: The problem with unilateral action is that it would encourage infraction proceedings against us and that it would weaken our argument on other matters such as close proximity mirrors, blind spot mirrors and, perhaps one day, Fresnel lenses. My hon. Friend is a firm supporter of the United Nations and understands the need to obey its rules.

Stephen Ladyman: I have encouraged my hon. Friend down an avenue that I did not want to encourage him down. We should use the existing structures and work as hard as we can to try to reach an agreement as quickly as possible, but we should not break the laws and treaties to which we have signed up.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is at least partially reassured. He should know that I am good hearted in these matters, and I hope that he will withdraw new clause 12.

David Drew: I did not know that hon. Members had come to this House to start a world revolution by taking on both the EU and the UN, but if that is what we must do to introduce a small measure of sanity into the issue of road safety, then so be it. In two days' time, I will attend an event to which I have been invited by a number of people who ride disability scooters and who use wheelchairs. The event celebrates the fact that they are fitting retro-reflective tape on to their vehicles in order to be seen more clearly at night. If retro-reflective tape is good enough for people who travel rather slowly, but who want to be seen more clearly, it behoves us to do something about HGVs.
	It is with some regret that I say that I will push new clause 12 to a vote. I do not understand the Minister's argument, because we must start somewhere and should adopt this simple measure. It is important that hon. Members show that we support what, as the Minister knows, is a long-standing and popular all-party movement. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter before it is considered in Europe.

Question put, That the motion be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 280.

'(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (drivers to comply with traffic signs) consisting of a failure to comply with a traffic sign placed at or near a level crossing indicating that vehicular traffic is not to proceed over the level crossing shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with six penalty points.
	(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'. [Mr. Carmichael.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 277.

Stephen Ladyman: I am delighted that he and other Wellingborough constituents are happy. I can understand their pain. A constituent of mine was killed by someone driving dangerously at a set of traffic lights, but because of the vagaries of the current law the driver was fined just 100 for causing a young man's death and leaving a widow. That is unacceptable and the new legislation fills the gap in the law and fulfils our manifesto commitment at the last election. I am proud that we have been able to agree on the new measure. I very much hope that the House of Lords will accept the view of the Commons and will not attempt to change this provision.
	I do not want to go through a long list of thanks to various people, because I know that hon. Members will want to contribute to our Third Reading debate. I would, however, like to pay tribute to both Front-Bench spokesmen for the constructive way in which they have participated. We have not agreed on everything, but we have had good fun debating the matter. Their arguments have been constructive, if occasionally wrong-headed. We have had a good debate and I commend all members of both Front Benches for that.
	I wish to mention some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), whose private Member's Bill introduced the careless driving provisions that we have made part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has been a long-term campaigner on road safety and is a former chairman of PACTS. He has been constructive throughout the debate. He and I have different opinions on how we enforce the measures on the level of alcohol in the bloodstream, but there are very few things on which we disagree.
	A Member who cannot be here tonighthe has apologisedhas been with this Bill since 2004 but finally had to give in and go off with a Select Committee: my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Had he been here, he would have been rebelling with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on retro-reflective tape.
	Other hon. Members have contributed to this enjoyable debate and I would particularly like to mention the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), a doughty defender of the owners of heritage Bentleys. I am sorry that he cannot be here for the final stage of the Bill.
	I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter), my PPS, who has looked after me throughout the Bill. Most of all, I wish to thank my officials for the wonderful work they have done. We cannot acknowledge anything that happens outside this Chamber, but were they listening. I hope that they would feel proud of their contribution to making our roads safer. I commend the Bill to the House.

Owen Paterson: It has been a long ride; I feel positively arriviste as my participation goes back only to the new year. However, the Bill began in 2004 and the Minister quite rightly said that its main objective is to reduce the number of those killed on our roads. In 2005, 3,201 people were killed on our roads; there were 271,017 casualties, of whom 141 were children who were killed. We have no intention of opposing the Bill because there are certain measures that we think will help to reduce that figure. The Minister said it had come down, but it is still an unacceptable figure and we have a nasty feeling that it may have plateaued.
	We are pleased about some elements of the Bill, such as road safety grants.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not aware of the details of the organisation, but it is probably the sort of educational project of which we approve.
	We are in favour of the financial penalty deposits and the immobilisation and removal of vehicles. That would certainly help our haulage industry, which is up against fearsome competition following the huge increase in the number of foreign trucks on our roadsup from 671,000 a year in 1997 to 1,595,000 in 2004. We hope that those sensible measures will work. We approve of medical inquiries for high-risk offenders following disqualification and of some of the measures to try to prevent deaths by uninsured drivers, although we feel they do not go far enough. Similarly, we approve of the measures to keep vehicles that do not meet insurance requirements, although we would want to go further. We like the tightening up on registration plates and the regulation of vehicles modified to run on fuels stored under pressure.
	Overall, however, we felt that the Bill was a missed opportunity. As the Minister acknowledged, we did not take a partisan approach. We tried to table constructive amendments and new clauses that would help to save lives, but we are ultimately disappointed with the Bill. We will not oppose its Third Reading tonight, but it could have been so much better.
	Some of the measures were petty, such as the ban on detection devices which effectively give drivers an extra pair of eyes and ears. We were also disappointed by the Government's continuing pigheadedness and pusillanimity about taking on the European Commission on safety issues on which other countries have already gone ahead. Those issues included retro-reflective tape, mirrors and alarms.
	We were disappointed on the issue of the inclusion of a rudimentary first aid element in driving tests. There is good evidence that if one can clear the airwaves of someone in an accident within four minutes they will live, but if not, they will die. We thought that such a provision would help to save lives, but we were turned down.
	The nearest we got to changing the Government's mind was on motorbikes in bus lanes. We all but got the Minister to accept that there should be a presumption that motorbikes should be allowed in all bus lanes unless specifically excluded, perhaps outside schools, hospitals or fire stations, but the Minister did not even give in on that.
	We could not persuade the Government on other issues, including some of regulation. We proposed a regime for licensing limousines, the number of which has increased spectacularly from 3,000 in 2003 to more than 11,000 now. Those large vehicles are not properly regulated, but many people travel in them and we fear that there may be a horrible accident. We also proposed regulation of pedicabs. We tabled amendments, having consulted the businesses involved, but time and again we were rebuffed.
	The Bill failed to address two big areas. We consistently tabled amendments that would have toughened up

Owen Paterson: We won the amendment and then the Minister voted down the clause, so it was a pyrrhic victory.
	The first big issue is the problem of rogue drivers. Some 750,000 cars are not properly registered on the database. Some 2 million drivers drive without tax or insurance, and some 500,000 may be unlicensed. The Department for Transport told us in September that as many as three in 10 vehicles may operate outside the laws on registration, vehicle testing and insurance. Research shows that drivers of such vehicles are10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving, six times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle, and three times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention.
	Our amendments would have borne down on hit and run drivers, for whom we wished to introduce a maximum penalty of 14 years so that there was no incentive to leave the scene of a serious accident if one had had a drink. We were disappointed that the Government did not accept the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), which would have caught those who constantly flout the law by giving a false address. We fear that instead of targeting the small number who cause disproportionate damage and mayhem, we risk alienating the 34 million drivers who just want to get from A to B safely and in comfort.

Stephen Ladyman: I remind hon. Members that the reason why we did not pursue the matter is that the head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers assured us that the police do not believe that any new powers are necessary. He is convinced that the police can enforce the matter without any change in the law.

Owen Paterson: That may be one category, but a wide range of people cease to concentrate on their driving skills. There should be a carrot among the measures; my last point is that the Bill is all stick. The Government's strategy is dependent on stick, but it should concentrate on the rogue drivers, and there should be a carrot for the vast majority of drivers who, as I said, want to get from A to B in safety. We do not have that incentive system, which might possibly work for the people mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
	Other hon. Members wish to speak, but I should briefly like to thank my team. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who is sadly not in his seat, was a fund of information and knowledge, both as a former Minister and as an owner of 15 cars. I thank our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who kept us in line on procedure and chipped in with some helpful contributions in debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who has been in the House for only a year, and who led with me on the Front Bench in a most competent and professional manner. That is a sure sign that he is going places, as, I am sure, is my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott)he is not presentwho made some sterling contributions.
	We should congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris). It is remarkable what happens when a west midlands MP goes north to a little birthday party, but we give him our congratulations.. He emerged today on the Front Bench, but when we last saw him in Committee, he was a Back-Bench Member. It would be wrong of me not to mention the Committee Clerk,Dr. John Benger, who was a fund of advice to us and extremely helpful. I should be most grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would pass our thanks on to him. With that, I wish the Bill well on its passage through the Lords.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) about all those who have contributed in so many ways to the passage of the Bill. As the Minister indicated, the proceedings in Committee were, by and large, constructive and good humoured. As someone who came to my present job after being part of the Home Affairs team, that was a pleasant change.
	I place on record my appreciation of the efforts of my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech), and my predecessor in this job, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who led for us on Second Reading, which was some time ago. I echo the congratulations of the hon. Member for North Shropshire to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), on his well deserved appointment to the ministerial team. The hon. Gentleman has been uncharacteristically mute this evening, but I know from the experience of many years locked with him in small studios at 4 Millbank, broadcasting to a tiny number of people in Scotland, that he is a doughty defender of Government interests. I have no doubt that when he is released from his silence his contributions will be characteristically well informed and of assistance to the House.
	At times, I wondered whether we would ever reach Third Reading. It seems so long since we finished even the Committee stage. As has been reflected in other contributions, much in the Bill is good. However, so much more could be better. I feel sincere regret that on the big issuesthe real opportunities in the Billthere has been a certain timidity at the heart of the proposals and measures that the Government have introduced.
	A reduction in drink-driving limits would have been a real opportunity for the House to make a significant difference in the number of lives lost and injuries caused, and to reinforce the message about the social unacceptability of drinking and driving. Likewise, there could have been an opportunity to reduce default speed limits in built-up areas, which we see already in many different communities throughout the countryNewcastle, Aberdeen and other places are making real progress in that regard. What a chance there was to offer those opportunities to every community, but unfortunately, owing to timidity and lack of conviction, the opportunity was missed.
	Then of course there is that issue of massive geo-political significancethe fitting of retro-reflective markings to heavy goods vehicleswhich ultimately, it seems, will have to be resolved by the United Nations Security Council. It beggars belief that so many excuses can be produced for not doing something that is so sensible. It really was like finding oneself in the middle of a Yes, Minister sketch listening to the Minister tonight trying to defend the Government's position.
	Of perhaps less central importance but significant none the less is the question of pedicab regulation. I am concerned that we have missed an opportunity for proper, effective and responsible regulation of the pedicab industry. That is of particular importance to the capital, and for pedicabs to be squeezed off the streets by Westminster city council and taxi operators is neither fair nor sensible. I do not know how we will now resolve that issue. I fear that it will ultimately be dealt with by the courts, and it was something that we could have dealt with in this Bill.
	I fear that we have not yet seen the last of the Bill. There are still a number of issues outstanding with the other place. I refer of course to the provisions relating to level crossings and to bridge strikes. We finish with the Bill tonight, allowing the Minister and his colleagues time for reflection. I hope that he will use it well and that, on mature consideration, he will see that there is worth in what the other place has done. I hope that he will not continue to resist Members in that place.
	Those points aside, we wish the Bill well. We think that it will make a significant contribution to the safety of our streets and roads, and for that we are very grateful.

David Burrowes: It has been a long road to get to this point in improving road safety. Certainly I can commend much in the Bill, and my constituents will do likewise. It has been a particularly long road for those in my constituency who have been campaigning on a wide range of road safety issues, not least the Galli-Atkinson family, who lost Livia when, in 1997, she was the victim of a tragic crash caused by a dangerous driver who received a lenient sentence. They have been campaigning since then, not only on the need to increase penalties for dangerous driving but on a wide range of issues of education and other aspects of safety. They will no doubt commend much of the Bill.
	The family helped to set up the Livia award. Its panel met last month with my predecessor and others to commend those police officers who have been most meritorious in their investigation of road crash incidents and who have shown outstanding service to road crash vehicles. During that meeting one example exposed a gap that the Minister is too ambitious in saying has been plugged. Last year, a driver high on drugs and drink sped away from a police patrol car, overtook a car on a pedestrian crossing by travelling on the wrong side of the road and struck a married couple on the crossing. The husband died and the wife survived but in a brain-damaged condition, and she now requires 24-hour nursing care. The eight-year sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was relatively appropriate, but there was no sentence at all for the injuries to the wife. I suggest that no sentence is provided by the Bill.
	Another example is that of Rachel Jones, aged 13. She was crossing a road when she was hit by a car driven dangerously by Carl Smith at 98 mph. We all have concerns about dangerous drivers speeding and driving unlicensed and drunk. Rachel was left severely brain damaged and in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She has no movement in the right side of her body. Her mum, Sheri Ozdemir, described Smith's two-year jail sentence as a joke. She said:
	He 'killed' the Rachel we had for 13 years and yet he can get away with doing just two years. Rachel's future as a bright and active young teenager was cruelly taken from her by a man who did not even have a licence to drive a car.
	The driver received a two-year sentence. The victim and her family have effectively lost a life. Although she is living, she is brain damaged.
	The concern that I and others have, which we should like to have debated further on my new clause 26, is the gap between those convicted of dangerous driving and those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. The gap in sentencing is too large, considering the serious injuries that often result from such incidents. In response to a consultation paper in February, the Government said they would take account of non-fatal injuries by way of a sentence for bad driving. They intended to increase the penalty for dangerous driving from two years to five years. They should reflect whether we need further legislation or an increased penalty for dangerous driving to plug the gap that still exists for those who have suffered serious injuries but not death.
	Although the penalties for dangerous driving have increased, those who are almost at the point of death, who are seriously injured to the point of brain damage, do not receive the justice that they deserve. One cannot see the qualitative difference between the husband and wife who were both injured. One died and the other was left brain damaged. What is the qualitative difference between them as victims? That gap needs to be filled. It is not adequate for the Government to say that they will deal with the matter by introducing an aggravating factor for causing death by dangerous driving or for dangerous driving. We need a specific offence or, at the very least, increased penalties for dangerous driving.
	Northern Ireland has an offence of causing death or grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, but we do not. Why is that good for Northern Ireland but not for the rest of the United Kingdom? The Bill raises questions that victims in my constituency and elsewhere would ask. How can Parliament justify a penalty for causing death by dangerous driving but not for causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving? How can the Government and Parliament justify a penalty for causing death by dangerous driving but not for brain death by dangerous driving?

David Kidney: I am disappointed at not having secured debates on the amendments in my name on seat belt wearing and court presentation officers, but despite those minor disappointments, this is a good Bill. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister and I cannot see eye to eye about the legal limit for drinking and driving, but let there be no doubt that my opinion of him is that he is a very good Minister indeed for road safety in the United Kingdom. No one could doubt his personal commitment to high standards of road safety and driving down still further the casualties that occur day in, day out on our roads.
	My hon. Friend was able to publish some good news recently, with the 2005 statistics for casualties on our roads, with reductions in deaths, serious injuries and total injuries. That is a good picture which he can feel some pride in. However, there was one worrying blip in those statisticsthe number of cyclists killed in the last 12 months of the period covered by the statistics. I am sure my hon. Friend and his excellent team will want to evaluate what has gone wrong over the past 12 months and what we can do through further measures of education, enforcement of the existing laws and engineering measures to bring down the number of deaths of some of the most vulnerable road users.
	Generally, the trend has been downward over a number of years. My hon. Friend can say that the Government are well on target to meet their casualty reductions for 2010. Some measures in the Bill will help towards those aims. In addition to the list that my hon. Friend provided, I draw attention to the promotion of a greater use of rehabilitation and driver improvement courses. They will prove to be significant over time.
	Quite properly, the House is taking seriously the matter of death on our roads. There are a number of measures to do with death in the Bill, such as causing death by careless driving and causing death when driving illegally. Equally significant will be the alternative verdict permitted in a manslaughter case, which I hope will encourage prosecutors to be a little braver in charging people with manslaughter in appropriate casesthe most serious ones.
	So all in all, this is a good Bill, which I hope will continue to promote the Government's ambition, and the House's wish, that the number of casualties on our roads will continue to decrease. I wish it well in the other place.

Andrew Selous: Like every Member who has spoken today, I welcome the Bill and wish it good passage on its way to the statute book, although we will have to see what the Lords do to it.
	However, I have a huge disappointment that the Minister will be well aware of. For more than 18 months, I and Bedfordshire policeand, indeed, many other police forces throughout the countryhave been trying to convince the Government that there is a very real problem with drivers who register their vehicles to addresses where the police cannot contact them. In response to my intervention on a Front-Bench colleague a few moments ago, the Minister said that the Association of Chief Police Officers told him that that was not a problem. Merely asserting that to be the case does not make it so. Officers from Thames Valley police and from the forces of Suffolk, Greater Manchester, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Essex, Nottinghamshire, Humberside, Derbyshire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire, Norfolk and Kent, to name but a fewthose who actually have to do the jobhave told Bedfordshire police that there is a very real problem. They have tried to feed that message up through ACPO. Perhaps there is a blockage in ACPO and its senior people are not listening to the officers on the ground who have to enforce the law, but there is a very real problem here.
	I do not know why the Government have not moved on this matter; they have had plenty of warning. There have been two meetings at the Home Office and twoat the Department for Transport, and we have had 18 months to look into this issue. In my constituency, there are horrendous examples of people driving unbelievably dangerouslyspeeding past cameras and jumping red lights time and againwhom the police can do nothing about. Bedfordshire police recently gave me a list of five fatalities, including that of an 18-month-old child, all of which could have been prevented if the Government had taken this issue seriously.
	The Government say that the current law works properly. They did not like the amendments that I tried to put before themwe would have had before us a new clause 17 tonightbut at no time have they come forward with their own proposals, or any others, to deal with this matter.

Andrew Selous: With the greatest of respect to the Minister and to the head of ACPO road policing, everything that I have been told by the officers on the ground who actually have to enforce the current law suggests that it does not work and that they simply have no options. The result is thousands of offences for which the fines are not collected, and the offences are repeated again and again; indeed, a whole morass of crime underpins this situation. Why would someone commit a crime in a vehicle other than one whose use means that they cannot be contacted? So I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer.

Kelvin Hopkins: I just want to say a few words in strong support of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is my next-door neighbour, politically speaking. He is right to take a stronger line with errant drivers of the kind that he mentioned. I have always felt very strongly that we are too soft on this minority of drivers, who behave very badly and give a bad name to the millions of people who drive perfectly well and never cause an accident or an injury.
	I very much hope that the other place will bring back amendments on reducing the alcohol level for drink-driving. In the pastunusually, I supposeI have supported the Liberal Democrats on this issue on a previous Bill. We should fall into line with other European countries and take a much more serious view of the effects of alcohol on driving. We have all no doubt had a glass of wine or beer and driven afterward, and we all know that it does make a difference to the way that we drive, however slight. The proposed half-limits that the Europeans have will make a difference, compared with those that we currently have. The change will be incremental, but there is no question but that lives will be saved. It might be 50 or 30 lives, but they will still be lives, so it is important that we take this step. It will also help to educate us all about the necessity of being responsible when we drive. Such strict laws reinforce
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Stephen O'Brien: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the users of Cuddington post office in my constituency near Northwich. It is a great centre of their community where people can be confident that they will meet members from their community. The sub-postmaster needs to be congratulated and saluted for having very bravely withstood an armed attack on his post office just the other day while this petition was being collected.
	The petitioners declare that they
	believe that the post office network provides a vital service to local communities in both urban and rural areas which are threatened by the Government's withdrawal of services from local post offices.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its announcement that it will end support for the Post Office Card Account in 2010 thereby threatening the viability of thousands of post offices and to immediately halt its activities designed to kill the account off in advance of that date.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

David Amess: Regeneration was never an issue in the years that I represented Basildon because of the development corporation and the new town commission, which were entirely responsible for the vibrant economy that we all experienced then. What a contrast life is in Southend, where assistance is urgently needed with the regeneration of the wonderful seaside town, part of which I represent together with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge).
	Tonight I will be focusing primarily on the programmes of structural, economic and cultural development in Southend. However, the main goal underlying regeneration must be to capture and embed the town's sense of identity. Hence the projects in the most visible and central areas of the town, including Victoria avenue, the high street and the seafront will be at the forefront of the educational, retail, office, culture and leisure initiatives planned for the future. Critical to this will be the use of the council's land assets and a corresponding need to ensure that there is a deliverable strategy that also takes into account parking and transport needs and the sad issue of cliff slippage in Westcliff.
	My own constituency of Southend, West, encompassing parts of Westcliff and all of Leigh-on-Sea, is often seen as being quite separate from the hub of Southend's main town centre, but their fortunes are inextricably linked under Southend unitary authority, sharing the same public amenities, transport infrastructure, culture and leisure facilities, and, most importantly, a want to see Southend thrive in the21st century. Therefore, tonight I very much want to address some of the problems facing Southend. For instance, in the constituency that I represent of Southend, West, Leigh creek sadly needs dredging, which would take a considerable amount of money but if it could be done it would help the cocklers and local fishermen.
	There is no doubt that a major part of Southend's revival will be its re-establishment as an attractive and vibrant seaside town for visitors and residents alike. Peter Hampson, who is a director of the British Resorts Association, has blamed transport policy for neglecting train routes to seaside resorts, noting that train fares to coastal towns are often more expensive than a flight to a European destinationwe all realise that cheap flights will not continue for ever. In order to compete seriously with overseas locations, seaside towns need to offer the public more than nostalgia. As Professor John Lennon of Glasgow Caledonian university has noted:
	To be viable, seaside resorts have to diversify. It's no good offering just one visitor attraction and expecting visitor numbers to rise.
	Holidaymakers have become more sophisticated and demand more from seaside resorts.
	Southend's early growth derived from its success as a fishing port, but that was overtaken in the late19th century by internal tourism as rail infrastructure grew. Towards the middle of the previous century, the town diversified with local industrial and office economies. More recently, those sectors have declined in the town as commuters have made use of the two mainline stations, which connect to London. Despite the comprehensive rail network, Southend still suffers some of the worst traffic congestion in the eastern region, and public transport does not meet all needs at the moment.
	Sustainable development must be the priority in the regeneration of Southend, which means continual inward investment building on the high number of business start-ups and investing in affordable housing for key workers and local people, which is controversial. Tourism has a major role in the town's economy, and projects such as the redevelopment of Southend pier following, for the third time, a fire will be central to the town's fortunes. That seasonal industry can thrive only in the presence of other strong local enterprises. I am delighted to say that Southend has been identified as a major regional centre in the Thames Gateway plan with an emphasis on culture and education, but we will need significant investment from outside the town if it is to fulfil that potential. Southend's unsuccessful and perhaps controversial bid for a regional casino has been well documented. The important point is that Southend wanted a leisure complex, which would have benefited the town enormously.
	In addition to attracting more people to Southend, it is essential that we continue to provide first-class public services for our constituents. For example, there was recently a successful world record attempt in my constituency for gathering together the greatest number of people aged over 100, and the ageing population has increasingly put public services in the spotlight. We are very fortunate to have Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, which is reaching all its clinical targets while balancing its books, but other areas, such as social services, are currently under desperate pressure.
	One problem that continues to undermine Southend borough council's spending capacity are the woeful financial settlements awarded to it after the 2001 census, which miscalculated the town's population by 20,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East and I had an unsatisfactory meeting with the Office for National Statistics, which was not followed by any movement, and local residents are suffering as a consequence. The Government grant to the council was reduced by 7 million, which has resulted in a 2 per cent. increase for 2006-07 compared with the national average increase of 3 per cent. That matter is a great concern for local residents.
	The errors that led to the Government's funding shortfall to Southend have needlessly damaged public services and the town's faith in its council, which has had its hands tied on finance. Despite those set backs, however, I am determined that the town fulfils its place as the cultural hub of the Thames Gateway, a successful centre of learning through the expansion of the university of Essex Southend campus, a key location for transport and, importantly, accommodation during the Olympic games and a lively tourist destination that people from outside the area want to visit and of which local residents can be proud. Local identity has been pivotal for several regeneration success stories in the UK in terms of providing a sense of place. For instance, Newquay, Southport, Brighton and Blackpool have all established their identities very successfully.
	Southend has been identified as the centre of culture and leisure in the Thames Gateway. As part of that project, the Government are looking to create 13,000 new jobs and several thousand new homes in Southend by 2021. The plan envisages that growth being achieved through employment-led regeneration to produce a more sustainable balance between housing and employment, with growth targets carefully calculated in an attempt to reduce out-commuting.
	Renaissance Southend was incorporated as a private limited company on 18 March last year in response to the need for regeneration. Its objectives are to assist, promote, encourage, develop and secure regeneration in the social, physical and economic environment of Southend-on-Sea. The high street benefits from two mainline rail stations serving a large number of local stations within the immediate and adjoining urban areas. It also has good proximity to the seafront and a high number of seasonal visitors. However, although work is being undertaken to redevelop Victoria plaza, the quality of retail outlets on offer is generally not ideal for a town the size of Southend and reinforces the impression that residents generally may wish to shop elsewhere, which is very sad. In addition, despite Southend's being reported as the safest place in the country to live in a crime survey earlier this year, there is a general perception that the high street is unsafe after shopping hours, which is largely exacerbated by pedestrianisation. I do not think that Southend high street has ever recovered from the loss of a major store called Keddies.
	The diversity of the high street has recently been enhanced by the relocation of South-East Essex further education college. Work has also commenced on the next phase of the university of Essex campus, with a new enterprise and innovation faculty. A further phase of the university's expansion will be the redevelopment of the Palace hotel, which is going great guns at the moment. It will be used as a conference and business training centre and is due to be completed in late 2007 through a 14 million grant from the Government's sustainable communities fund, for which Southend residents are very grateful, and 1.5 million fromthe East of England Development Agency. Accommodating the further growth of the University of Essex and South-East Essex college will help to establish the centre of Southend as a cultural hub that could also include a new public and university library, and possibly even a performance and media centre. In addition, Prospects college, a privately run vocational training establishment, has already secured funding for the acquisition of a new site and is putting together funding for the construction of new premises that will significantly enhance vocational skills and training opportunities, particularly for construction-related trades.
	The town is accessed by two principal east-west roadsthe A127 and the A13. While the former is primarily an access route for commercial traffic to the main employment areas, it still suffers from severe congestion during peak hours at a number of junctions. Southend's road network is not fit for purposethe result of historical underfunding by all Governments. The employment-led regeneration objective of Thames Gateway South Essex will be severely constrained without investment in the arterial roads, and there is no evidence as yet that that will be forthcoming. The aforementioned budget shortfalls following the 2001 census forced Southend borough council to cease their subsidies to the two bus operators in the town, which in turn led them to axe all loss-making routes. That has been most harshly felt in the areas of Eastwood and Belfairs, and it has particularly affected senior citizens.
	However, our transport problems in Southend will not be solved simply by diverting people on to public transportcommercial vehicles must be able to access businesses in the town too. The strategy for Southend's regeneration must therefore include wide-scale plans for overhauling our road network. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East might want to mention the Ministry of Defence site in Shoebury. There are also issues regarding the Priory crescent development, which has not yet been signed off. Apart from that, there appears to be no commitment to any other major transport infrastructure for the town to support growth and regeneration.
	Southend airport, which is run by Regional Airports Ltd, has planning permission for a new terminal and rail station plus a current application for an adjacent park-and-ride facility. It recently published a masterplan following the principles set out in the airports White Paper. It reflects its current business plan objective to increase passenger numbers to 1 million people per annum in the next four to five years. Of course, that is again rather controversial.
	The local partners who are engaged with Renaissance Southend have worked hard to develop strategies aimed at overhauling the structural and cultural amenities in the town. Those strategies must tackle the town's ailing tourist industry by re-establishing well-known landmarks such as Southend pier. However, as I said earlier, we cannot rely on a single modern monument and nostalgia alone. More active intervention is imperative. Local residents welcome any tangible and sensible assistance in the regeneration of Southend.

James Duddridge: I congratulate my colleague, neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I should like to make four points.
	First, I reiterate my hon. Friend's point about the 2001 census. Several meetings were held with Ministers in good faith to try to resolve the problem but it persists. Every time that the Government try to redistribute money via local government, Southend gets a poor deal. I hope that the Under-Secretaryan Essex Ministercan shed some light and perhaps even a ray of hope where other Ministers have failed to shine.
	Secondly, there is a democratic deficit in relation to Southend and Essexand, I suspect, in relation to regeneration generally. We have Thames Gateway South Essex, Thames Gateway, a Whitehall tsar for Thames Gateway, the East of England Development Agency, the regional assembly, the county council, the unitary authority and now Renaissance Southend. There is a confusion of regeneration organisations. There are some very talented people in those organisations but I believe that the structures are dysfunctional. The further we move money away from individual members of the public towards either pan-national organisations such as the European Union or regional organisations or quangos, the more poorly it is spent.
	Thirdly, I want to consider infrastructure and Priory crescent. I would greatly appreciate it if the Under-Secretary updated the House on the dualling of Priory crescent. The decision about whether we should dual has been controversial in Southend. However, the matter has been through a public consultation and it would be wrong, having gone through it, and giventhe need to improve east-west communications, for the road building not to go ahead. I look to the Under-Secretary for an update about the funding and some assurance that protesters will not block the democratic right of local people to dual that road.
	Fourthly, let me look forward to Southend 2012. There is an enormous opportunity to give Southend's position leverage in the region as we approach the Olympics. We have the campus at the university of Essex and we have the airport, as my hon. Friend said. Southend would be an ideal place to base an Olympic team. Let me refer to Members' interests: Southend United made a donation to my party before the election. It was a case of the blues supporting the blues and I reciprocate on Saturdays. Southend is building a 20,000-seater stadium, which I support. That is a possible venue, not for the Olympics, but for a training camp and general training.
	There is so much opportunity. I look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary how she and the Department will step up to that enormous opportunity. I am sure that she wants to do that.

Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing today's debate, which gives us the opportunity to examine the continuing significant work on regeneration in Southend. I am pleased that he recognised the work that is continuing on jobs, skills, culture, education and infrastructure.
	I have a fondness for Southend. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his time in Basildon. When he was Member of Parliament for Basildon, I was the Labour candidate for Southend, West, where I lived for many years. We waved as we passed one another when I returned home to Basildon. So it is interesting for me to be here today, replying to this debate.
	The Communities and Local Government Committee is taking evidence on coastal towns and on the issues facing those towns. That will be valuable in determining the issues that are generic to a number of such towns. Southend faces a number of problems that are caused largely by structural weaknesses in the local economy, and by an over-dependence on tourism, on fishing and on certain types of financial and business institutions. Southend needs a mixed economy, and I am pleased to see the increase in tourism that has taken place since 1998. It might be helpful to look atthe figures. In 1998, tourism was worth just over135 million to Southend. By 2004, the figure had increased to 217 million. That is a great achievement, but we need to see economic regeneration as a whole.
	Southend is often regarded as a leafy, affluent seaside town, but there are pockets of deprivation and economic inactivity, mainly centred around the Milton, Victoria and Kursaal areas in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), which border the sea front. To improve the lives of all the people in Southend, we need not only to improve the physical infrastructure but to create an environment in which the economy can thrive. Education is particularly important in that regard.
	Both hon. Members referred to the census figures, which have caused certain difficulties. Numerous representations have been made between the council, local MPs and the Office for National Statistics. We appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, but the Government set their grant allocations based on the best information available, which comes from the ONS. I appreciate that correspondence on this matter is ongoing, and the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) has met MPs and members of the council to discuss the issue. I understand that the ONS has invited Southend to participate in a project on improving migration and population statistics. That project will look at the areas of migration that have caused concern to the council and to local MPs, and I hope that the work will provide an explanation and help us to reach a solution.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned the revenue support grant. Southend received a net increase of 2.2 per cent. in formula grant in 2006-07, and will provisionally receive 2.7 per cent. in 2007-08. Council tax was increased by 4.9 per cent. While the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Southend, West are discussing these matters with the ONS to see whether any progress can be made, they might also like to look at the Audit Commission's use of resources assessments that formed part of its comprehensive assessment work. Southend's use of resources and providing value for money in 2005 received a score of two out of four, so perhaps there is room for Southend council to make some progress there. The Department would of course be happy to help in that regard.
	Speaking as someone who loves Southend pier, I was sorry to hear, a year ago todayit was my husband's birthday, so I remember the date wellthat the pier had been attacked by fire for the third time in living memory. I am pleased to report that the pier reopened in August 2006, however. Hon. Members might be interested to note that, between December 2005 and June 2006, more than 44,000 visitors came to the pier. That is a tremendous achievement, and it shows just how popular an attraction the pier is. I also recommend a visit to the wonderful pier museum to anyone who visits the pier. It is right, however, not to see the pier as the sole attraction, and the work that has gone into supporting the Pier Hill redevelopment, involving nearly 6 million in Government and European money, has had a significant impact in that regard.
	The role of Renaissance Southend in the regeneration programme is important to the town as a whole, and I was disappointed in the comments of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about a democratic deficit. It is important to bring together the public and private sectors in this programme. I know that Renaissance Southend is keen to work with Members of Parliament, and I understand that both the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East and the hon. Member for Southend, West have met its representatives. It is also working closely with the local council, and it is engaged in stakeholder workshops. Last week, it undertook an audit walk through the town centre with invited members of the public. It is also planning more continuous, conventional forms of engagement. The work that it is doing to develop the town as a cultural and educational centre, and the work that it is doing for the university, will be conducted with all partners being involved. I understand that the council is closely involved with the board of Renaissance Southend.
	I was delighted by the enthusiasm for the Olympics shown by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. I share his commitment, and Essex has a tremendous amount to gain. Obviously, the focus will be on east London, but geographical proximity means that we can benefit enormously through such things as the image of our area internationally, the tourism economy and the growth that we will see in business and transport services, skills and jobs. All those will be important to us.
	The Department is closely involved with the Olympic steering committee, and will look at the games and the legacy to see how we can benefit, as well as the whole Thames Gateway group. I am happy to keep the hon. Gentleman informed on those issues, given his commitment, but there is a great advantage for the whole of Essex, including Southend, which will benefit.
	Both hon. Members mentioned road improvements in the Priory Crescent area. Part of that is the development between the A127 and Cuckoo Corner areas, which is being considered. Approval was granted by the Government in the 2000 local transport capital settlement, and the Department for Transport contributed 14.5 million. Southend council came back to say that additional money was required, because the project was more expensive than was first thought. In June, the council requested additional funding, not just for road improvements, but for a bus passenger transport corridor. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is looking at this issue and expects to make an announcement shortly.
	Another issue that is worth mentioning, and both hon. Members referred to it, is tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. Southend is a safe place to be. It is one of the safest areas in the country, but there is no doubt that the people of Southenda MORI poll recorded a figure of 81 per cent.want crime and antisocial behaviour to be tackled better.
	On Friday and Saturday nights, about 13,000 young people move around the clubs and pubs in the Southend area. About 60 per cent. of crime in the borough is committed between 10 pm and 4 am in the town centre and the adjacent streets. The Government have allocated 232,000, which is a great deal of money and which includes 25,000 to tackle antisocial behaviour, to the Southend crime and disorder reduction partnership. There is also 133,000 for a family intervention scheme and 1.6 million from the neighbourhood element of the safer and stronger communities fund.
	That is all having an effect, and I must tell hon. Members that violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery and theft of motor vehicles have all decreased in the last 12 months. There is a very strong message: we are not prepared to tolerate antisocial or yobbish behaviour, and the Government are putting their money where their mouth is to try to tackle those areas.
	There are major development opportunities in the Southend area that can make a difference, but if we really want to make a difference to the economy, we have to tackle education opportunities as well. The campus of the university of Essex has already been mentioned. This is a 52 million investment in South East Essex college, right in the heart of the town centre. The state-of-the-art campus of the university of Essex at Southend will provide educational facilities, a business development centre and an innovation centre alongside commercial space. We anticipate that it will create up to 800 jobs in Southend.
	There is also support for the establishment of a trust school at Thorpe Bay, which will bring a failing school out of special measures and create a major new vocational training centre. There are funding opportunities, as pump priming funding has also come in to support work on Pier Hill. As part of the commitment to establishing Renaissance Southend, the East of England Development Agency has pledged to spend an average of 3 million to 5 million a year in the Southend area.
	Southend airport also has the potential to contribute more to the economy of Southend. It has aspirations for growth of about 1 million passengers a year by 2012.
	In conclusion, it is important that we look forward. As both hon. Members said, Southend has the potential to be a major hub of prosperity in the region. Given the way in which people are working together in the primary care trust, police, council and Renaissance Southend, I hope that the slogan when I lived in Southend, Southend-on-Sea, the place to be will come true again for Southend. There are challenges ahead, which I would not underestimate, but I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will be reassured that the support from the Government, ongoing activities, plans and investment are there to make Southend's prospects much brighter in the future.
	Finally, it is worth noting that in  Yours magazine's survey of the best places to live and retire to, Southend-on-Sea came top. The magazine said that it was a bargain retirement location with a low violent crime rate and a home to seven miles of award-winning beaches, with more than 80 parks and open spaces and lots of activities for older people. The editor of  Yours said:
	Southend-on-Sea may not be the average person's idea of an idyllic retirement town but it's got everything older people really need.
	We want to work with Renaissance Southend, Southend borough council and Members of Parliament to ensure that it not only has everything that older people need but the jobs, homes and infrastructure that all people need. I welcome the support of the hon. Members, Southend borough council and the Renaissance partnership to ensure that we achieve that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock